Poultry Producers Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1186 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the strikers were engaged in an economic strike and were therefore
subject to replacement. Accordingly, he recommended that the
Union's challenges be overruled and that the Employer' s challenges be
sustained. On November 4, 1955, after the issuance of the report
on challenges,, the General Counsel affirmed the Regional Director's
dismissal of the unfair labor practice charge. -
The dismissal of the unfair labor practice charge by the General
Counsel establishes conclusively, for the purpose of ruling on these
phallenges,,that the unfair labor practices charged by the Union are
without foundation.2 Accordingly, we adopt the Regional Director's
finding that the strikers were economic strikers.
In its exceptions the Union also contends that the employment of the
strikers has not, in fact, been terminated by the Employer and that no
determination has been made that their replacements have been em-
ployed permanently. The Union asks that a hearing be directed to-de-
'termine the status of the challenged voters at the time of the election.
The Regional Director found that the Employer hired employees
challenged by the Union "as permanent replacements for the striking
employees." As the Union has submitted no evidence in support of
these contentions, we find they raise no material issues as to the
factual findings contained in the report on objections.3
- For the above reasons, we shall adopt the Regional Director' s recom-
mendation. The challenges to `the ballots of employees Beltrone,
Benemerito, and Caiola are overruled; the challenges to the ballots of
employees Guistiniana, De Ninno, and Del Prete are sustained.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Second
Region shall, within 10 days from the date of this'Direction, open. and
count the ballots of Peter Beltrone, Antoinette Benemerito, and Joseph
Caiola and serve upon the parties a supplemental .tally of ballots.]
MEMBER Mu-RDocK took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Direction.
2 Colonial Provision Company, Ine ., 112 NLRB 1056.
C. C. Anderson Stores Company, 104 NLRB 218.
Poultry Producers Association and Teamsters and Butchers
Joint -Organizing Committee, AFL, Petitioner . Use No. 8-RC-
2530. November 21,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John Vineek, hearing officer.
114 NLRB No.178.
POULTRY PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION 1187
The hearing officer's rulings made at the -hearing' are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees, excluding truckdrivers, at the Employer's Versailles, Ohio,
poultry plant. The Employer contends that only a companywide unit
consisting of the production and maintenance employees , including
truckdrivers, at both its egg and poultry plants is appropriate.
The Employer, an Ohio cooperative , was organized in 1938 for the
purpose of marketing eggs for its members. In 1941, it commenced
to market live poultry. In 1946, it expanded this operation to include
the processing and sale of dressed poultry . During the period
1941-54, the Employer 's operations were conducted in a single build-
ing, hereinafter called the egg plant . In December 1954, the Em-
ployer purchased an additional building about one -half mile from
the egg plant and transferred its poultry processing operations to that
building , hereinafter 'called the poultry plant . The Employer plans
eventually to move its egg operations to a plant to be built on the same
tract of land presently owned by the Employer and occupied by the
poultry plant . It is the production and maintenance employees at
this building whom the Petitioner seeks to represent . There is no
history of bargaining at either plant.
The record shows that , since the separation of the Employer's op-
erations in December 1954, eggs and poultry have been brought to the
egg and poultry plants , respectively , by the farmer members of the
Employer or in the Employer 's trucks. At the poultry plant, the fowl
are transferred from the trucks to the loading dock and are processed
through a killing line, a scalding room, a picking line, a singer, and
a washer. The product is then either packed and shipped or placed
in a freezing room until sold. At the egg plant the eggs are graded,
candled, and packed for shipment. There are approximately 60 em-
ployees in the poultry plant, 90 in the egg plant , and 14 drivers. Em-
ployees in the poultry and egg plants punch a time clock in the build-
ing to which they are assigned . During the winter months, from
January through March, when the volume of business in the poultry
plant is seasonally reduced, 10 to 12 employees at the poultry plant
are.temporarily transferred to the egg plant. At other times in the
year, individual employees are transferred from one plant to the other
387644-56-vol 11476
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on a temporary basis, as the needs of the Employer require. In addi-
tion, production workers are often assigned as helpers on trucks and,
on at least one occasion, a truckdriver has been assigned production
duties. While the nature of the work performed at the two plants is
different, the majority, if not all, of the jobs in each plant are either
unskilled or semiskilled.
The Petitioner would exclude the truckdrivers from the unit. There
are 14 drivers, divided into 2 functional groups . One group consists
of 6 over-the-road drivers who operate leased trucks between the Em-
ployer's plants and its customers located in distant cities. Each of
these trucks generally carries both poultry and eggs. The second
group of drivers operates the Employer's trucks over local routes, all
within a 50-mile radius of the Employer's plants . One of these trucks
is a "flat-bed" type of truck, which is used to transport poultry only;
another of the Employer's trucks collects both poultry and eggs; and
the remaining trucks collect only eggs . While the majority of the
local drivers are permanently assigned to one type of truck or the
other, 3 or 4 of them alternate between the egg and poultry trucks.
The over-the-road drivers are paid on a trip basis , while the local
drivers are paid on an hourly basis.
All operations are under the control of a general manager, who is
assisted by a plant foreman at each plant and by a supervisor in charge
of the truckdrivers. These assistants may recommend the hiring and
discharge of their subordinates, but final action is taken by the general
manager . Personnel policies, including labor relations, which are de-
termined by the general manager , are uniform, and personnel and pay-
roll records are centrally located in an office in the egg plant. Al-
though Petitioner contends that wage rates , seniority, and hours of
work are different at each plant, the record shows that the average
level of wages and the hours of employment at both plants is sub-
stantially the same, and that seniority is companywide. Other work-
ing conditions, including holidays, are likewise uniform.
On the basis of these facts, including the substantial interchange of
employees, the integration of the work of the truckdrivers with the
operations of both plants, the centralized control of the Employer's op-
erations and labor relations policy, and the proximity of the plants, we
find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate. We shall,
therefore, dismiss the petition.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
I See Sidney Blumenthai & Company, 112 NLRB 579: Saco-Lowell Shops, 107 NLRB 590.