Royal Tallow & Soap Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 834 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of ROYAL TALLOW & SOAP Co., INC. and TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, LOCAL 87
In the Matter of ROYAL TALLOW & SOAP CO., INC. and BUTCHERS
UNION, LOCAL 193, AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORK-
MEN OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. OF L.
Cases Nos. 21-RC-,96 and 21-RC-185.-Decided July 30, 1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before
a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
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 organizations named below claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist 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.
4. The appropriate units :
The Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Local 87,
herein called the Teamsters, seeks a unit of all truck drivers and help-
ers at the Employer's Bakersfield, California, plant, excluding butch-
ers, cookers, and supervisors. The Butchers Union, Local 193, Amal-
gamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, A. F.
of L., herein called the Butchers, seeks a unit of all butchers, cookers,
3 The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
*Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock.
78 N. L. R. B., No. 106.
834
ROYAL TALLOW & SOAP CO., INC. 835
tankhousemen and those engaged in the processing of meat and meat
byproducts at the Employer's Bakersfield, California, plant, excluding
truck drivers and helpers, and supervisors. The Employer contends
that its operations at the Bakersfield plant are too small to justify the
establishment of two separate bargaining units and asserts that the
appropriate bargaining unit is one embracing all its employees at this
plant, excluding supervisors.
The Employer operates at Bakersfield, California, one of its three
rendering plants in which it processes and converts dead animal stock,
raw shop fats, bones, and other like material into tallow, grease, meat
scraps, and bone meal. There were approximately eight employees at
this plant at the time of the hearing. Truck drivers and helpers spend
the major portion of their time making pick-ups of the various matter
to be processed and spend the rest of their time performing the same
general functions within the plant as do the remaining employees.
Except for the part-time presence at the plant of a working supervisor,
discussed below, the management and supervision of all these em-
ployees emanate from the Employer's plant at San Francisco, Cali-
fornia.
There is no collective bargaining history or prior Board determina-
tion as to the employees in either unit sought herein. Although the
truck drivers also assist in the processing operations of the plant, they
are essentially engaged in the function of transportation which, we
believe, furnishes a sufficient basis for their establishment as a separate
bargaining unit. We have frequently held that such units are appro-
priate.2
The remaining employees spend more than 50 percent of their time
at the sundry butchering and cooking operations within the plant and
appear to be a functionally coherent group who may be represented
as a unit for purposes of collective bargaining.3
The fact that the Employer's Bakersfield operations may be rela-
tively small in size does not alone warrant a denial of the units re-
quested. Moreover, neither union herein seeks to represent an over-
all unit of employees at this plant, as contended for by the Employer.
We shall, therefore, find appropriate two separate units as requested by
the Petitioners.
The working supervisor : Ignacio Garcia divides his time equally be-
tween driving a truck and performing manual work at the plant. Two
months before the hearing the Employer placed him in charge of the
plant operations, which prior to such time were supervised entirely by
the San Francisco plant. An official of the Employer visits the plant
2E. g., Matter of Morgan Bros. Co ., 77 N. L. R. B. 1440; Matter of Burnet -Binford
Lumber Company, Inc., 75 N. L. R. B. 421.
3 Cf. Matter of Norcal Packing Company , et al., 76 N. L. R. B. 254.
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
each month and stays for approximately 1 week. Garcia's added re-
sponsibilities consist of showing the men their jobs and seeing that the,
'work is done. It was testified on behalf of the Employer that Garcia
hires and discharges employees but that he "can't do anything without
our o. k." Although the Employer determines when a lay-off is neces-
sary, Garcia selects the men for lay-off by seniority and conveys to
these men the notice thereof. Certain complaints and grievances such
as assigning a night-shift employee to day work, have been disposed
of by Garcia without further consultation with the Employer.
The circumstance that Garcia received these additional responsi-
bilities recently, or that he was awarded a wage increase therefor
shortly before the hearing, is not material to the issue if it appears that
at the time of the hearing he did in fact possess supervisory powers.
In view of the fact that Garcia is regularly in sole charge of the plant
over substantial periods of time, and upon the entire record, we find
that Garcia is a supervisor within the meaning of the amended Act 4
Accordingly, we shall exclude him.
We find that the following groups of employees of the Employer
at its Bakersfield, California, plant, excluding supervisors, constitute
separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
1. ' All truck drivers and helpers:
2. All butchers, cookers, tankhousemen, and those employees en-
gaged in the processing of meat and meat byproducts.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, separate elec-
tions by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not
later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in
which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5,
among the employees in the appropriate units described in paragraph-
4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Elections, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or
cn vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who
have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired
or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding em-
4 Matter of Continental Industries , Incorporated , of Kansas City, Missouri , 76 N. L. R. B.
56; Matter of Farmville Manufacturing Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 237.
ROYAL TALLOW & SOAP CO., INC. 837
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not, for the purposes of collective bargaining: (a) the em-
ployees in Unit 1, above, desire to be represented by Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 87; and (b) the employees in
Unit 2, above, desire to be represented by Butchers Union, Local 193,
Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
A. F. of L.
798767-49-vol. 78-54