Missouri Beef Packers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1969

175 N.L.R.B. 1100 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

1100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Missouri Beef Packers , Inc., Missouri Cartage
Company , Inc., Iowa Beef Packers, Inc., and
National Oats Company , Iowa Beef Packers, Inc.,
Farmbest, Inc., Noble Manufacturing Company
and Associated Employees Organization, Local
1284, Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Cases 17-AC-11, 17-AC-12, 18-AC-9,
18-AC-10, 18-AC-11, and 18-AC-12
May 19, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND ZAGORIA
The Associated Employees Organization (AEO)
was certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as the collective-bargaining representative of the
Employers ' employees in appropriate units on
various dates in 1965 and 1966.' On October 28,
1968, the Associated Employees Organization, Local
1284, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, filed
petitions in Cases 18 -AC-9, 10, 11, and 12, and on
January 2 , 1969, filed petitions in Cases 17-AC-11
and 12, requesting that the certifications be
amended to designate itself in place of the AEO as
the certified bargaining representative.
Cases 18-AC -9, 10, 11, and 12 were consolidated
by the Regional Director for Region 18 by his
Order dated November 18, 1968 . A hearing was
held on December 10, 1968 , and January 7 through
January 10 , 1969, at Denison , Iowa , before Hearing
Officer Harold E. Jahn. Following the hearing, the
cases were transferred to the Board for original
decision.
Cases 17-AC- 11 and 12 were consolidated by the
Regional Director for Region 17 by his Order dated
January 16 , 1969. A hearing was held on January
28, 1969 , at Kansas City, Missouri , before Hearing
Officer R. L. DeProspero . At the hearing the record
in Cases 18-AC-9, 10 , 11, and 12 was incorporated
by reference by stipulation of the parties.
Subsequently , the Regional Director for Region 17
transferred these cases to the Board for original
decision.
On February 11, 1969, the Board , by Executive
Secretary Order, granted Intervenor' s (AEO)
motion and consolidated Cases 18-AC-9, 10, 11, and
12 with Cases 17 -AC-11 and 12.
Thereafter , the Petitioner, Intervenor , Farmbest,
and Iowa Beef Packers filed briefs in support of
their respective positions , and Petitioner and
Intervenor filed reply briefs by special permission of
the Board . Intervenor (AEO), Farmbest , and Iowa
'AEO was certified as collective-bargaining representative as follows.
National Oats, Case lS-RC-6201, 1/12/65; Iowa Beef Packers, Case
18-RC-6227, 2/17/65; Farmbest, Case 18-RC-6564, 1/27/66; Noble
Manufacturing , Case 18-RC-6636, 1/20/66 ; Missouri Beef Packers, Case
17-RC-4985, 10/31/66; and Iowa Beef Packers, Case 17-RC-4990, 5/2/66.
Beef Packers oppose the amendment. National Oats
Company and Noble Manufacturing Company, who
did not file briefs in the instant proceeding, have
amended their collective-bargaining agreements with
AEO to recognize the Petitioner.
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 Hearing Officers'
rulings made at the hearings and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
Following Board-conducted elections, the AEO
was certified as collective-bargaining representative
of the Employers' employees in appropriate units on
various dates in 1965 and 1966 and subsequently
entered into collective-bargaining agreements with
the several Employers. On March 14, 1968, AEO's
Board of Directors met in Omaha with
representatives of the United Packinghouse Food
and Allied Workers of America, AFL-CIO
(UPWA),' following preliminary negotiations with
the UPWA independently conducted by Fred
Claxton, then AEO's president. Nine of AEO's ten
board members (not counting Claxton) were present
and, following the meeting, voted unanimously to
affiliate with the UPWA. Claxton did not vote on
this question. It was also decided that, upon
affiliation, Claxton should be paid $25,000 by
UPWA in payment of back salary and loans
allegedly made by Claxton to the AEO. This money
was placed in escrow contingent upon the UPWA
succeeding to AEO's bargaining rights. On March
19, 1968, UPWA issued a charter to AEO as Local
1284.
Thereafter, meetings were held at which AEO
members were advised of their Board's affiliation
resolution. Claxton resigned as president in March
and at a board of director' s meeting held April 2,
1968, Ronald Goodrich was either appointed to act
in the capacity of president or elected president of
the AEO. Sometime subsequent in either May or
June, Martin Pardekooper, a paid UPWA
representative, was elected president of the AEO to
permit him to conduct negotiations with employers
having collective-bargaining agreements with the
AEO.
On July 3, 1968, the Board of Directors adopted a
resolution to advise UPWA that it was dissatisfied
with the representation that it was receiving and
with UPWA's failure to compensate Claxton. At a
meeting held July 17, 1968, the AEO Board voted to
disaffiliate unless the UPWA lived up to the
affiliation agreement by July 24. The Board then
'The UPWA merged with the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO (Amalgamated) effective July 12,
1968.
175 NLRB No. 179
MISSOURI BEEF PACKERS, INC. 1101
voted that Pardekooper was no longer president'
and elected Ronald Goodrich president.
Amalgamated (formerly UPWA) was first advised
of AEO's disaffiliation action by a letter from
Goodrich dated August 13, 1968. AEO has
continued conducting meetings and processing
grievances at Iowa Beef Packers and Farmbest.
Petitions for amendment of the certifications
involved in these cases were originally filed May 20,
1968. Those in Region 17 were withdrawn August
15, 1968, and those in Region 18 were withdrawn
August 23, 1968. The withdrawal of the Region 18
petitions followed a letter from that Region to
Petitioner advising that the steps taken to affiliate
appeared to be inadequate and setting forth certain
minimum requirements, to include a secret ballot
vote by employees on the question of affiliation.
Following receipt of this letter, affiliation votes were
held in September and October 1968. Eligibility was
limited to AEO members. The Intervenor (AEO)
took no part in these elections and did not
encourage employees to vote on the ground that the
elections were illegal and a nullity. For the most
part the elections were conducted under the
direction of the Petitioner, although the record does
show that the president of the Missouri Beef
Packers' local participated in that election. All
elections resulted in substantial majorities, of those
voting, in favor of affiliation."
Petitioner relies heavily on two recent Board
decisions in support of its position: Equipment
Manufacturing, Inc.,' and Northern Electric Co.`
The Board amended the certification in Equipment
Manufacturing pursuant to a properly conducted
affiliation vote, despite the claim that the intervenor
there had subsequently revived the independent. The
Board stated that:
At most we have the Intervenor and a few other
employees designating themselves as officers of an
alleged union which they contend is the old
Independent. Even assuming the relevancy of a
revival, the claim here is not of a revival by a
majority of the employees, and is so patently
frivolous as not to require further consideration.
Here, unlike Equipment Manufacturing, it
appears that all of the officers and members of the
Board of Directors of AEO now oppose affiliation,
with the exception of Pardekooper, and that their
decision to "revive" AEO preceded rather than
followed the elections held to ratify the affiliation.
In North Electric the United Steelworkers
intervened and alone opposed the amendment,
'However , article VII of the AEO constitution and bylaws provides that
the president may be removed only by a majority vote of the Board of
Directors and must be ratified by a two -thirds vote of the membership
present at a regular or specially called meeting No such vote was taken
'Of approximately 2,150 employees in the units represented by AEO, of
whom approximately 1,542 were union members, some 501 voted, not
counting I void and 39 challenged ballots; 481 were in favor of, and 20
opposed to, affiliation.
'174 NLRB No. 74.
`165 NLRB No. 88.
alleging only that 26 employees had signed its
authorization cards. The Board, in amending the
certification, pointed out that, at a proper and
representative meeting, those employees present
voted 52 to 2 in favor of affiliation and that there
was thus no showing that more than 28 employees
opposed affiliation. Additionally, the Board stated
that it was guided by the general rule that
amendments of certification may not be granted
when there is a question concerning representation
such and that amendments are not permitted
where the certified representative remains in
existence and opposes the amendment." The same
officers continued in office, the independent
functioned as a local of the petitioner, and the
Board was satisfied that the amendment "`would
insure to employees the continuity of their present
organization and representation' [citing Emery
Industries, Inc., 148 NLRB 51, 53], as the
Independent no longer exists, as such, but functions
as a local of the Petitioner." Bedford Gear and
Machine Products, Inc.,' in which the Board denied
amendment, was distinguished by the majority on
the grounds that there both the employer and the
certified labor organization opposed amendment of
the certification; the petitioner was a splinter group;
the certified labor organization had won a Board
election within the preceding year, was still extant,
was supported by a substantial number of
employees, and was engaged in collective-bargaining
negotiations with the employer.
Here the circumstances are clearly distinguishable
from those in North Electric and Equipment
Manufacturing. Whatever else may be in doubt, it is
clear from the facts before us that by August, well
before the affiliation votes, the Board of Directors
of AEO and its officers with the exception of
Pardekooper, if he was still an officer, had
repudiated affiliation, and are now opposed to
affiliation. There is thus no guaranty of continuity
of representation; nor can it be said that the
affiliation was ratified, since by the time the
elections were held the AEO Board had already
voted to rescind its earlier action.
As we have frequently held in the past,
amendment of certification is not appropriate in
those cases where a question concerning
representation is presented! Amendment of
certification, by and large, is intended to permit
changes in the name of the representative, not a
change in the representative itself. Where, as here,
there is no guaranty of continuity of representation
and the certified labor organization is a functioning,
viable entity, and opposes amendment, it cannot be
granted without doing violence to the purposes of
the Act, which include the promotion of stability in
labor-management relations. Additionally,
'150 NLRB 1.
'See e g , North Electric Co, supra, Bedford Gear and Machine
Products. Inc, supra; Gulf Oil Corp, 109 NLRB 861.
1102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
amendment of certification under these
circumstances would circumvent and unnecessarily
abridge the Act's requirement that employees select
their own collective-bargaining representative. The
result we arrive at here does not preclude the
Petitioner from renewing the combat by filing
representation petitions when permitted under our
contract-bar rules, if it musters the required 30
percent support. If we, in fact, err in this result,
only time is lost without the possibility of interfering
with a reasonably tranquil continuity of
representation and without submerging the right of
the employees to choose their own
collective-bargaining representative . Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petitions.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed herein
be, and they hereby are , dismissed.
MEMBER ZAGORIA, concurring:
I concur in the result as, apart from any other
considerations, a number of unit employees
sufficient to have affected the results of the balloting
were disenfranchised because they were not
members of AEO. See the dissenting opinion in
North Electric Company, 165 NLRB No. 88, and
footnote 5 of Equipment Manufacturing, Inc., 174
NLRB No. 74.