New England Processing Unit

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 347 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

NEW ENGLAND PROCESSING UNIT 347
location,' excluding all operating department employees , office clerical
employees , construction supervisors , maintenance supervisors, fore-
men and assistant foremen , professional employees, supervisors, and
guards as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 Plant department employees ' who work out of other locations in the Boston , Massa-
chusetts , area are included within the unit.
Swift and Company d/b/a New England Processing Unit .and
United Packinghouse Workers of America , Local 165, AFL-
CIO. Cases Nos. 1-CA-3101 and 1-CA-31092. July 28, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 6, 1960; Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was, engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist! therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
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-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Swift and Com-
pany d/b/a New England Processing Unit, Somerville, Massachusetts,
its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with
United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 165, AFL-CIO, as
the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate units
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of,employment and other
terms and conditions of employment.
128 NLRB No. 46.
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Packinghouse
Workers of America, Local 165, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate units and embody any
understandings reached in signed contracts.
(b) Upon request furnish the above-named labor organization with
data pertaining to the salaries paid to the employees in the appropri-
ate units.
(c) Post at its place of business in Somerville, Massachusetts,
copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of
said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First
Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative
of the Respondent, be posted by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices
to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing,
within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with United Pack-
inghouse Workers of America, Local 165, AFL-CIO, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all our employees in the
appropriate units described below, with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of
employment, and, if agreements are reached, embody such under-
standings in signed contracts. The appropriate units are:
(a) All plant clerical employees at our Somerville, Massa-
chusetts, plant, including the clerk in the sliced bacon
department, the shipping department clerk, the part-time
standards checker, the standard checkers, the tstandards
clerk, and the clerk in the table-ready-meat department, but
excluding the assistant foreman of the curing department,
NEW ENGLAND PROCESSING UNIT 349
all other employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All office clerical employees at our Somerville, Massa-
chusetts, plant, including the stenographer, the payroll clerk,
the office assistant-voucher clerk, the office assistants, the
comptometer operators, the order writer, the manager's
clerk, and the relief office assistant, exclusive of the secretary
to the plant manager, all other employees, guards, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, upon request, furnish to United Packinghouse
Workers of America, Local 165, AFL-CIO, data pertaining to
salaries paid to the employees in the above-described appropriate
units.
SWIFT AND 'COMPANY d/b/a NEW ENGLAND
PROCESSING UNIT,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges filed by United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 165,
AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the General Counsel for the National Labor
Relations 'Board, by the acting Regional Director for the First Region, issued his
consolidated complaint dated January 29, 1960, against Swift and Company d/b/a
New England Processing Unit, herein called the Respondent , alleging that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) and 2 ( 6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat . 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the
order consolidating , the complaint , and a notice of hearing were duly served upon
the parties.
The complaint as amended at the hearing i alleged that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a)1(5) and ( 1) of the Act by refusing to comply with the Union 's request
to bargain land by refusing to furnish certain information relevant to bargaining in
the possession of the Respondent . The Respondent denies that by its refusal to
comply with the Union's request that it violated the Act.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Boston , Massachusetts, on February 17,
1960, before the Trial Examiner duly designated to conduct the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard ,and to introduce evidence was afforded all parties After
the hearing the Respondent filed a brief which has been duly considered
Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE PERTINENT COMMERCE FACTS
The Respondent is an Illinois corporation which in the course of its various
operations maintains a plant in Somerville , Massachusetts , for the processing, pack-
' The case numbers appearing on the complaint at the time of issuance were Cases
Nos. 1-CA-4001 and 1-CA-4002 The case numbers appearing in the caption were
assigned to the complaint by amendment at the hearing.
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
aging, and distribution of meat and related products. In the course of the opera-
tion of this plant the Respondent annually sells and ships products to points outside
the State of Massachusetts valued in excess of $50,000. From these facts T find that
the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that
exercise of the Board's jurisdiction over its operations will effectuate the purposes
of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
,On September 8, 1959, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Elections
in Cases Nos. 1-RC-5624 and 1-RC-5625. In the election held pursuant thereto
the Union was designated the representative of the Respondent's employees in sepa-
rate units of plant and office clerical employees and was certified as their exclusive
bargaining representative on November 6, 1959. The complaint alleges and the
answer admits that on November 18, 1959, the Union requested the Respondent to
bargain collectively for the employees in the appropriate units and requested the
Respondent to furnish it with information concerning the salaries paid to these
employees, but that the Respondent refused to bargain or to furnish the information
requested. The Respondent nevertheless denies that it thereby violated Section
8(a)'(5) and (1) of the Act.
The Respondent's contention that its refusal to bargain or to furnish the requested
salary information was justified is based on its denial that the units for which the
Union was certified as representative are appropriate for collective bargaining.
Specifically, the Respondent's brief excepts to the inclusion in the plant clerical
unit of Edgar T. Cogan, the clerk of the sliced bacon department, and the inclusion
in the office clerical unit of Helen Rogers, the stenographer Concerning Cogan,
the Respondent argues, as it did in the representation proceeding, that he should
have been excluded as a supervisor. The Respondent still asserts, as it also did in
the representation proceeding, that Rogers should have been excluded as a mana-
gerial employee. The Respondent maintains that the Board's inclusion of these
two employees in the respective units was arbitary and capricious because of its
disregard of the facts developed in the representation proceeding, and that the
Board's unit findings are consequently legally invalid
The Board's unit findings were not arbitrary or capricious. A reading of the
Board's Decision and Direction of Elections reveals that the Respondent's present
arguments then also made to the Board were given full consideration and that the
Board made its unit determinations only after objective appraisal of the record
before it and in accord with cited precedents The Board, having before it the
same evidence to which the Respondent now refers in its brief, and considering
substantially the same legal questions as those advanced in the instant case, made
unit findings which I may not alter nor from which I may depart. In accord with
the Board's determinations I find that the units found appropriate in Cases Nos.
1-RC-5624 and 1-RC-5625 are the appropriate units for purposes of the present
proceeding. There being no other defense to this proceeding, I find that the
Respondent by its admitted refusal to comply with the Union's request to bargain
collectively or to furnish salary data pertaining to the employees in the appropriate
units (see Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc., 117 NLRB 1619) violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III. above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade. traffic and commerce among
the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative
of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. I shall recommend that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of
the Act. It has been found that the Respondent has refused and still refuses to
INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S LOCAL 8 351
bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees
in the appropriate units described herein. It will therefore be recommended that
the Respondent bargain collectively, upon request, with the Union as the exclusive
representative of the employees in the appropriate units, and, if understandings are
reached, embody such understandings in signed agreements. It has also been found
that the Respondent has refused and still refuses to furnish information to the
Union concerning the salaries paid to the employees in the appropriate units. It
will therefore also be recommended that the Respondent, upon request, be ordered
to furnish the Union the requested salary information.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, 1 make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Swift and Company d/b/a New England Processing Unit is an employer
within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 165, AFL-CIO, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. The following units of the Respondent's employees at its Somerville, Massa-
chusetts, plant are appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
(a) All plant clerical employees including the clerk in the sliced bacon depart-
ment, the shipping department clerk, the part-time standard checker, the standard
checkers, the standards clerk, and the clerk in the table-ready-meat department, but
excluding the assistant foreman of the curing department, all other employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All office clerical employees including the stenographer, the payroll clerk, the
office assistant-voucher clerk, the office assistants, the comptometer operators, the
order writer, the manager's clerk, and the relief office assistant, exclusive of the
secretary to the plant manager, all other employees, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. On iSeptember 30, 1959, and at all times thereafter, the Union was and now is
the representative of a majority of the Respondent's employees in the -appropriate
units described above for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing on December 15, 1959, and thereafter to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the above-described
appropriate units, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8^(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union Local
8; International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union
Local 92; and International Longshoremen 's and Warehouse-
men's Union and General Ore, Inc. Case No. 36-CD-18. July 28,
1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 25, 1960, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of
128 NLRB No. 43.