Seattle Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 451 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SEATTLE PACKING COMPANY 451
SEATTLE PACKING COMPANY and OFFICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL NO. 8, AFL, Petitioner
SEATTLE PACKING COMPANY and AMALGAMATED MEAT
CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA,
LOCAL NO. 81, AFL, Petitioner. Cases Nos . 19-RC-1282
and 19 -RC-1308. July 29, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Oliver E. Kearns, hearing 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 National
Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members
Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) andSection2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The predecessor company of the Employer's Serv-U
division, whose employees are here petitioned for, was started
in 1940 as Serv-U Meat Company by the Employer's president
and his partners. It processed meat for sale.to hotels, meat
markets, and restaurants. In 1943 the partners acquired the
stock and assets of the Seattle Packing Company- -the Employer
herein--a going corporation engaged in slaughtering, proc-
essing, and selling meat. The 2 companies were operated as
separate enterprises until January 1953, when the Packing
Company acquired all the assets of Serv-U Meat Company,
retaining the operation of the latter as a division of the Pack-
ing Company, but consolidating the bank accounts, payroll, and
purchasing. It continued to maintain 3 locations of offices: the
Packing Company administrative office and production plant
office and the Serv-U office.
The Employer's production employees are apparently covered
by 2 separate collective-bargaining agreements, only 1 of which
is in evidence. It is a multiemployer agreement between
"Seattle Meat Jobbers Association" and the petitioning Meat
Cutters, covering- -according to the testimony although not
shown by the terms of the contract--only the Serv-U meat
cutters. The Employer testified that this had been "the
recognized unit" for a "number of years." There is also testi-
mony that the Packing Company salesmen are represented by
another local of the Meat Cutters Union, but the contract is not
106 NLRB No. 78.
322615 0 - 54 - 30
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in evidence. So far as the record discloses all office employees
of the Employer as well as Serv-U division sales personnel
have never been bargained for.
Case No. 19-RC-1282
The petitioning Office Workers Union seeks a unit of office
clerical employees at the Serv-U division of the Employer, a
unit of 24, but the Employer contends that only a unit of all its
office clerical employees, approximately 60 in number, is ap-
propriate. There is testimony that since 1943 a central per-
sonnel officer has been "over the office section," with au-
thority to hire and discharge and with an assistant at each office
location. The clerical employees at the 3 locations do the usual
office work, are paid weekly "on a comparable wage scale,"
work the same number of hours, and have the same vacation
and medical benefits. The record contains some instances of
transfers from the Serv-U division to the Employer' s adminis-
trative office. On the basis of this record we find that a unit
of all the Employer's office clerical employees is the ap-
propriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining for these
employees. Although such unit is broader than that requested
by the Petitioner, its showing of interest is sufficient in the
broader unit and we shall direct an election in that unit. Should
the Petitioner not wish to participate in an election in that
unit, it may withdraw its petition upon notice to that effect
to the Regional Director within 10 days from the date of this
Decision and Direction of Elections.
Case No. 19-RC-1308
The petitioning Meat Cutters Union requests a unit of all
Serv-U division employees, except truckdrivers, office clerical
employees, janitors, guards, and supervisors. In effect, it
requests a unit of meat cutters and salesmen at Serv-U. At
the hearing it stated that in the alternative it would represent
a unit of outside, inside, and telephone sales personnel, with
the same exclusions plus meat cutters. The Employer contends
that neither unit is appropriate, the combined meat cutter and
salesmen unit because the meat cutters concerned have been
covered by a multiemployer contract, and the salesmen unit
because it does not include the packing-plant salesmen, who
are also covered by a contract the terms of which do not appear.
In support of its request for a combined unit of meat cutters
and salesmen the Peititioner introduced testimony that "a
majority" of Serv-U salesmen are former meat cutters and are
already members of the Petitioner. However, as the meat
cutters and salesmen are separately supervised, have different
working conditions and wages, and work different hours and, as
the Board ordinarily excludes salesmen from units of manual
workers, t we find--without considering the impact of previous
t See Dunlap Chevrolet Company, 91 NLRB 1115.
SEATTLE PACKING COMPANY 453
bargaining for the meat cutters alone--that a combined unit,
of these employees is inappropriate. It is thus unnecessary for
us to pass upon the Employer's motion to dismiss upon the
ground of the previous bargaining.
We consider now the Petitioner's alternative unit limited to
Serv-U sales personnel. It appears that Serv-U salesmen call
on a different kind of trade than the packinghouse salesmen,
the latter calling on butchers and the former on restaurants,
hotels, and similar buyers and, accordingly, that they stress
different cuts of meat. This factor alone, however, would not
necessarily indicate the appropriateness of a separate unit
limited to salesmen of Serv-U division. But in view of the fact
that the remaining salesmen employed by the Employer are
already represented under contract by another local of the
Petitioner, we find that the residue of its salesmen--those
employed in the Serv-U division and here petitioned for--form
a unit appropriate for purpose of collective bargaining, and
we shall direct an election in such a unit. Accordingly we deny
the Employer's motion to dismiss insofar as it was based
upon the inappropriateness of the Petitioner's alternative unit
request.
The question of the inclusion of two telephone order girls
at Serv-U in the unit of salesmen remains for consideration,
the Employer urging that they are clerical employees, not
selling employees, and the Petitioner, apparently, that they are
"telephone salesmen." The Office Workers does not seek to
represent them. The record indicates that these employees are
considered by the Employer to have sales qualifications, that
they telephone the accounts on which the salesmen do not call
every day--principally restaurants--that they receive instruc-
tions from day to day by the sales manager concerning items
to "push," and that they attend sales "clinics" with the sales-
men. However, they are considered to be "under the office
manager ' s" supervision , and their line of promotion was
stated to be clerical rather than sales. In addition, it appears
that orders are also taken in the billing office, but the record
does not show whether this constitutes mere answering of calls
rather than solicitation, nor whether specific employees are
assigned to the work. Seventy-five to eighty-five percent of
the time of the two order girls is spent on telephone selling,
with the remainder devoted to checking invoices turned in by
salesmen. The written orders which they make out as the result
of their calls to customers are the same as the sales invoices
checked by them. On the record as a whole we conclude that
their work duties and interests are closely allied with those of
the salesmen , and we shall therefore include the telephone order
girls in the unit of salesmen.
We direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot
among the employees of the Employer in the following units
which we find appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. All office clerical employees of the Employer at its
Seattle, Washington, plants, excluding all other employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. All outside, inside, and telephone sales personnel of the
Employer in its Serv-U division, Seattle, Washington, including
telephone order girls, but excluding all other employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MASTRO PLASTICS CORP., and FRENCH-AMERICAN REEDS
MANUFACTURING CO., INC. and LOCAL 3127, UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA. Case No. 2-CA-1799. July 29, 1953
ORDER
On March 13, 1953, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1
in the above-entitled proceeding. Thereafter, on May 6, 1953,
counsel for the Respondents filed a motion to modify order
and for other relief which the Board, on May 25, denied as
lacking in merit. On June 2, 1953, counsel for the Respondents
filed a further motion to complete record which the Board, on
July 2, 1953, considered and disposed of as of that date. Counsel
for the Respondents thereafter, on July 20, 1953, filed a motion
to vacate order and stay proceedings. Respondents assert
therein that Section 3 (d) of the Act grants final authority to
the General Counsel in respect to the prosecution of complaints
before the Board; that the motion to modify order filed May
6, 1953, was a motion touching essential elements of said
prosecution; that the General Counsel was not heard upon said
motion and is not shown by the record to oppose or concur with
the merits thereof; and that "unless it appear of record that
the General Counsel has exercised his said final authority upon
a motion touching the essential elements of the prosecution,
the Board is without power to proceed," and its Order of May
25, 1953, is void. Respondents further contend that they have
been deprived of a fair hearing on said motion of May 6,
because persons other than the General Counsel performed the
function of prosecuting thereon. Respondents therefore move to
stay all proceedings until the General Counsel has furnished
Respondents with appropriate notice of position on the issues
raised in the May 6 motion to modify.
The Board has duly considered the matters raised by Re-
spondents' motion to vacate order and stay proceedings. Re-
spondents' motion is grounded on the assumption that, under
Section 3 (d) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,
the Board has no authority to deny motions made by Respondents
1103 NLRB 511.
106 NLRB No. 81.