National By-Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 5, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 334 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1004, and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1710, AFL-CIO, are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. By contributing support to the IBEW, Respondent has engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
4. By discriminating with respect to terms and conditions of employment, Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section:
8(a)(3) of the Act.
5. By the foregoing conduct, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
.Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
National By-Products Company 1 and International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, Local No. 452, Petitioner. Case No. 30-RC-1451..
December 5, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before F. T. Frisbey, hear-
ing officer. 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. Capitol Rendering Company, named as the Employer in the
petition and herein called Capitol, as well as Greeley Rendering Com-
pany and Sterling Rendering Company, herein respectively called
Greeley and Sterling, are all local unincorporated branches of Na-
tional By-Products Company, an Iowa corporation, herein called
National. The record establishes that Dunn, the general manager of
Capitol, is directly responsible to National for the operations of
Capitol, Greeley, and Sterling, including the operations involving
the employees designated in the petition, and that the payroll and
bookkeeping necessary to the personnel administration of these
branches is handled through National's central office in Des Moines,
Iowa. On these facts, we find that National is the Employer of the
employees designated in the petition.
Capitol contends that as it is not the Employer and as the petition
named, and was served upon, Capitol and not Employer, the petition
is defective . We do not agree . General Manager Dunn, a representa-
1 The case caption is amended to reflect the correct name of the Employer as established
by evidence adduced at the hearing and set forth hereinafter.
122 NLRB No. 48.
NATIONAL BY-PRODUCTS COMPANY 335'
tive of National, was present throughout the hearing, the petition
clearly designated the employees sought, and there is no claim of
surprise or prejudice. In these circumstances, we find that the Em-
ployer was not prejudiced by the misnomer and that service of the
petition and other formal papers upon Capitol constituted proper-
service upon the Employer.2 We further find that the Employer is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it
would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this.
proceeding.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. Greeley and the Intervenor, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and'
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 634, AFL-CIO, are
parties to a contract covering 2 of the 12 employees sought by the
Petitioner. The Employer asserts that this contract is a bar. How-
ever, as the Intervenor has disclaimed any interest in representing
any of the employees involved in this proceeding including the two.
aboveinentioned employees, we find that this contract is not a bar.'
We therefore find that a question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer operates processing plants in Denver, Montrose,,
and Pueblo, Colorado, and stations at Greeley and Sterling. For-
merly Greeley and Sterling were also processing plants, but they are
now merely pickup stations for the Denver plant. It is the employees
who work out of Greeley and Sterling whom the Petitioner seeks to,
represent. This unit would consist of the Greeley, Loveland, Fort
Collins, Longmont, and Sterling, Colorado, and Sidney, Nebraska,
areas, including drivers operating between Greeley and Denver; the,
Employer contends that this unit is inappropriate.
The Employer, in effect, alleges a lack of integration between these,
two stations. Drivers headquartered at Greeley collect materials from
the Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, and Greeley areas; similar'
drivers at Sterling collect from the Sterling and Sidney areas. The
foremen at Greeley and Sterling transport the materials from
Greeley and Sterling to Denver. Although there is no interchange of
drivers between Greeley and Sterling, both stations service the same
geographical area and are under the overall supervision of General
Manager Dunn at Denver, who determines drivers' routes and pickup,
areas. Greeley and Sterling service only the Denver processing plant,,
and there is no evidence that the other processing plants are inte-
grated with the operations involved herein. No labor organization
2 See Coro , Inc., 105 NLRB 718; Frost Lumber Industries , 101 NLRB 659 ; Harding'
College, 99 NLRB 957.
3 See WTOP, Inc., 114 NLRB 1236, 1237.
336 DECISIdNS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
seeks to represent these drivers as part of a larger unit and except
as noted above, there is no bargaining history affecting these em-
ployees. In view of all circumstances, therefore, we find that the
drivers at Greeley and Sterling have a sufficient community of in-
terest to warrant their establishment as a separate appropriate unit .4
We find, accordingly, that all metropolitan and territorial drivers
headquartered at the Employer's Greeley and Sterling, Colorado,
pickup stations and serving the Greeley, Loveland, Fort Collins,
Longmont, and Sterling, Colorado, and Sidney, Nebraska, areas, ex-
cluding all supervisors 5 within the meaning of the Act, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. The Employer in effect contends that the employees are not en-
titled to an immediate election because the Greeley and Sterling plants
may be reconverted to processing, or in the event that they are not,
all drivers may be hired on a contract basis. As these possibilities
appear wholly speculative, we find no merit in the Employer's con-
tention and shall therefore direct an immediate election.e
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
* Chemical Express, 117 NLRB 29.
s As the record establishes that the foremen at Greeley and Sterling responsibly direct
the work of the other drivers, and have and exercise the authority to hire and discharge,
we find , they are supervisors and shall exclude them from the unit . We shall also ex-
clude the two contract drivers at Sterling who collect materials from the Fort Morgan,
Wray, and Otis areas, in view of the parties' agreement that they are not employees.
6 Standard Automotive Manufacturing Company , 109 NLRB 720.
Bemis Bro. Bag Co. and Warehouse Union Local 12, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America,' Petitioner . Case No. 20-RC-
3644. December 5, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Shirley N. Bingham,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from. prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2
1 Herein , called Local 12.
s At the hearing , Textile Workers Union of America , Local 71 , AFL-CIO, herein called
Textile Workers, served a subpoena dudes tecum on Local 12 , requiring it, to produce
books , and records or other evidence of payments made in the form of strike benefits to
the Employer 's employees . At the same time counsel for Textile Workers made certain
regcarks'about ;both Local .12 and its parent International Union_ Local 12 sled apetition
to revoke subpoena duces tecum and moved to strike the remarks of counsel for Textile
Workers. The hearing. officer. revoked the subpena , and granted the motion to strike.
It appears from the statements made at the hearing by counsel for Textile Wprkery that
122 NLRB No. 52.