78 N.L.R.B. 1067 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

Poultry Producers of Central California

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 18, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 1067 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of POULTRY PRODUCERS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, EM- PLOYER and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 29,. A. F. OF L., PETITIONER In the Matter of POULTRY PRODUCERS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA, EM- PLOYER and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 208, A. F. or L., PETITIONER Cases Nos . 20-RC-2 and 20-R-2296, respectively .-Decided August 18, 1948 DECISION AND ORDER - Upon separate petitions duly filed,' a consolidated -hearing in these- cases was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. For reasons discussed in Section 3, infra, the motions of the Employer and the Intervenor to dismiss the petitions are hereby granted.2 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 these cases to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members. * Upon the entire record in this consolidated 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 employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9- ' These cases were ordered consolidated by the Board on March 9, 1948. ' Among the arguments advanced by the Employer and the Intervenor for dismissal is the contention that the Petitioners have failed to prove that the units referred to in the petitions are appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. 'Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds 78 N. L. It. B., No. 148. -1067 1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: Locals 29 and 208 request separate units of all office and clerical employees, excluding supervisors, at the Employer's Oakland and, Modesto branches, respectively. Independent Office Employees Asso- ciation, hereinafter called the Intervenor, urges that, in view of the past bargaining history on the basis of a multiple-plant unit including the employees sought herein, the units claimed by Locals 29 and 208 are inappropriate. The Employer also asserts that the units requested are inappropriate. The Employer is a cooperative market association engaged in the sale and distribution of eggs and poultry and in the purchase of feed and supplies for its farmer members on a cooperative basis. Of the 41 branches operated by the Employer, office employees are employed in about 24,3 the number in each varying from 1 to 27 employees. The branches at Oakland and Modesto, which are approximately 70 miles apart, and about 10 and 80 miles respectively from the central office in San Francisco, provide in each case employment for between 5 and 8 office employees.4 While over-all management and industrial relations policies are centralized in the main office under the-direction of a gen- eral manager and a manager of industrial relations, each branch has its own manager who has authority to hire new employees, to adjust grievances, and to grant sick leave and other privileges, subject to the limitations of the governing agreements and the policies of the main office. There is apparently no interchange of workers among the branches herein concerned. Despite the-integrated nature of the Employer's administrative organization, the substantial independent authority vested in branch managers over employees within their respective groups, the lack of interchange of employees among the various branches, and the geo- graphical separation of the Employer's Oakland and Modesto plants indicate that these branches are relatively autonomous and that the employees therein might constitute separate bargaining units. As noted above, however, the Intervenor contends that the past bargain- ing history between the Employer and the Intervenor precludes the establishment of separate bargaining groups for the employees at the Oakland and Modesto branches. An examination of the bargaining history of the Employer dis- closes that pursuant to a cross-check conducted by the Board on December 13, 1940, the Employer and the Intervenor, during the same a In 1940 , only 8 branches were covered by a multiple -plant agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor . Subsequently , however, these were added to the original unit branches which later employed office workers. 4 It appears that the employees live in the locality in which they work. POULTRY PRODUCERS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA 1069 year, entered into a collective bargaining agreement -covering the office employees at eight of the Employer's branches including those at Oakland, Modesto, and Petaluma. Thereafter, successive agree- ments were executed between the parties. The record shows that fol- lowing a consent election involving the office employees at Petaluma,' the CIO was certified as the bargaining agent for such workers at that branch. Accordingly, an agreement between the Employer and the CIO was entered into in August 1947. If further appears that after the certification of the CIO and after the execution of an agreement between the Employer and the CIO pursuant thereto, the Employer and the Intervenor again renewed their original agreement covering the office workers at all branches where such employees exist, with the exception of those at the Petaluma branch. The Petitioners contend, however, that there is absent here any effective history of bargaining on a multiple-plant basis with regard to office workers generally. We do not agree. The 1940 agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor clearly establishes a pattern of bargaining on the basis of a multiple-plant unit. While it may be argued that this pattern was broken in 1946 by the separation therefrom of the office workers at the Petaluma branch, the record clearly establishes that from 1940 to 1947 there has been at all such branches other than Petaluma, an uninterrupted history of collective bargaining on a multiple-plant basis, with no indication that such bargaining has in any respect become less effective as the result of the separation of the Petaluma branch from the multiple-plant unit. In view of this history, we do not believe it would be conducive to stability in labor relations to permit the withdrawal from the over-all unit of the office employees at the branches herein above mentioned.6 We find, therefore, that the proposed units limited to office employees at the Oakland and Modesto branches are inappropriate. Accordingly, we shall order that the petitions be dismissed. Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions filed in the instant matter be, and they hereby are, dismissed. 50n October 21, 1946, the Board conducted an election to determine whether the Inter- venor or United Office and Professional Workers of America, CIO, hereinafter called the CIO, was to act as the collective bargaining representative for the Petaluma office workers. 6 Matter of Standard Brands , Incorporated, 75 N L. R. B 394, Matter of Spencer Car- dinal Corporation , 74 N. L. It. B. 528, Matter of Federal Shipbuilding & Drydock Company, 65 N. L. It. B. 410.