St. Louis Independent Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1968

169 N.L.R.B. 1106 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

1106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
St. Louis Independent Packing Company and
District No. 9, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO,
and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO, Joint
Petitioners . Cases 14-RC-5739 and
14-RC-5740
February 28, 1968
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND ZAGORIA
Upon an amended petition duly filed under Sec-
tion 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Of-
ficer Herman W. Glaser, on November 9 and 10,
1967. Following the hearing and pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction
of the Regional Director for Region 14, this case
was transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board for decision. The Employer, Joint Peti-
tioners, and Intervenor' have filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs filed herein, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pol-
icies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
St. Louis Independent Packing Company, herein
the Employer, is engaged in the slaughtering,
dressing, and processing of meat products. It has
one plant, located in St. Louis, Missouri, employing
a total of approximately 1,800 to 1,900 persons.
For 23 years, all plant employees of the Employer
(excluding dock checkers and truckdrivers) have
been represented for collective -bargaining purposes
in a single production and maintenance unit, which
has included the mechanical division employees.
Since September 1, 1961, the National Brother-
hood of Packinghouse and Dairy Workers Local
20, herein the Intervenor , has been certified as the
exclusive collective-bargaining agent for this unit.
A contract between the Employer and Intervenor
was executed on September 1, 1964, and expired
on September 1, 1967. On June 28 , 1967, District
No. 9, International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, herein the
Machinists , filed a petition with Region 14 seeking
certification as the representative of the employees
of the mechanical division of the Employer 's plant,
and excluding all other employees . On that same
date , the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO (herein the
Meat Cutters ), filed a petition with Region 14 seek-
ing certification for other production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer 's plant , exclud-
ing mechanical division employees , as well as cer-
tain other categories of employees.
On August 1, 1967, after learning that the Re-
gional Director intended to dismiss their individual
petitions ,2 the Machinists and Meat Cutters filed a
"First Amended Petition ," which sought certifica-
tion of the two unions as joint representatives of all
production and maintenance employees presently
represented by the Intervenor.
On August 3, 1967, the Regional Director for-
mally dismissed the "First Amended Petition,"
stating, inter alia , that it "is such a substantial
change from the original petition that it constitutes
in effect a new petition , which is filed during the in-
sulated period and is therefore untimely ."3 The Re-
gional Director also on that day dismissed the
original petitions filed on June 28 , 1967, on the
grounds that the Machinists ' request for severance
of the mechanical division employees was "inap-
propriate in view of the long history of bargaining
for an overall production and maintenance unit"
and that the Meat Cutter 's petition was not sup-
ported by an adequate showing of interest . While he
did not so state, it seems implicit that the Regional
Director also doubted the appropriateness of the
unit requested by the Meat Cutters, which excluded
mechanical division employees.
Following the Regional Director's rulings on Au-
gust 3 , 1967, the Machinists and Meat Cutters filed
individual requests for review with the Board. In
their requests , the Machinists and Meat Cutters ar-
' National Brotherhood of Packinghouse and Dairy Workers, Local 20,
Affiliated with National Brotherhood of Packinghouse and Dairy Work-
ers.
2 Joint Petitioners ' offer of proof, rejected by the Hearing Officer, that
on August I a representative of the Regional Director orally informed the
representatives of the Meat Cutters and the Machinists that the Regional
Director intended to dismiss both petitions on the ground that the units
sought were inappropriate , has been considered, as it is not controverted
and is relevant for purposes of establishing the setting in which the events
occurred.
3 Under the rule established by the Board in Deluxe Metal Furniture
Company, 121 NLRB 995, where there is an existing contract between an
employer and an incumbent labor organization, a petition for representa-
tion by a rival union will not be entertained unless it is filed prior to the 60
day "insulated" period preceding the termination date of the contract. In
the instant case, the insulated period began on July 3, 1967.
169 NLRB No. 157
ST. LOUIS INDEPENDENT PACKING COMPANY 1107
gued that, in the circumstances, the joint amend-
ment to their original petitions should not be viewed
as so substantial a change as to constitute a new
petition, arguing that all parties had proper notice
that all employees covered by the existing contract
were subject to the timely petitions filed on June
28, 1967, and that the same employees are encom-
passed in the amended petition. They further as-
serted that they were prejudiced by the Regional
Director having delayed a full month before decid-
ing that the original petitions described inap-
propriate units, since, if the Regional Director had
expressed such decision prior to the commence-
ment of the insulated period, they could have
amended their petitions so as to preclude the issue
of timeliness.
On September 28, 1967, pursuant to Petitioners'
request for review, the Board directed the Regional
Director to reinstate "the petition" and to issue a
notice of hearing to resolve the issues raised by the
appeal.
On October 25, 1967, the Employer filed a mo-
tion for reconsideration or, alternatively, for clarifi-
cation of the Board's order.
In its motion the Employer asserted, inter alia,
that the Machinists improperly failed to serve at
least three interested parties with copies of its Au-
gust 9, 1967, request for review, and also that the
Meat Cutters' request for review which was dated
August 15, 1967, was filed beyond the time limits
set out in the Board 's Rules and Regulations. In ad-
dition, the Employer requested the Board to recon-
sider the merits of the case or, in the alternative, to
clarify the meaning of its September 28, 1967,
order reinstating the petition.
Thereafter, in a letter of November 1, 1967, the
Board denied the motion for reconsideration on the
ground that the Employer's motion did not raise any
issues not previously considered by the Board in its
decision to direct a hearing,4 and clarified its order
by indicating that Cases 14-RC-5739 and 5740, as
amended on August 1, 1967, were reinstated and
ordered to hearing.
The Employer, Joint Petitioners, and Intervenor
appeared at the hearing conducted on November 9
and 10, 1967. The Employer and Intervenor ar-
gued, inter alia, that: (1) the original petitions filed
by the Machinists and Meat Cutters were in-
adequate for the reasons stated by the Regional
Director in his August 3, 1967, letter of dismissal;
(2) the amended petition of August 1, 1967, con-
stituted a substantial change from both of the
original petitions of June 28, 1967, and should
therefore- be considered a new petition untimely
filed within the insulated period; and (3) even if not
a substantial change, the amended petition should
be dismissed, as the pooled authorization cards
should not be used to establish a showing of interest
for a joint petition.5 The Meat Cutters and Machin-
ists contended, inter alia, that the "First Amended
Petition" did not substantially change their earlier
petitions which were timely filed, and that, there-
fore, their amendment of August 1, 1967, related
back to the date of filing of the original petitions,
i.e., June 28, 1967, prior to the inception of the in-
sulated period.
We are satisfied that the "First Amended Peti-
tion" filed on August 1, 1967, was not such a sub-
stantial change from the original petitions filed on
June 28, 1967, as to constitute a "new" petition,
since the amended petition merely seeks to
represent, in one unit , all those employees formerly
sought to be represented by the separate petitions
which were - filed at an appropriate time. Cf.
National Carloading Corp., 167 NLRB 801.
Furthermore, we find no merit in the Employer's
and Intervenor's contention that the pooled
authorization cards may not be used to establish a
showing of interest necessary to support the joint
petition. We have held that authorization cards
designating only one petitioner are sufficient to
establish the interest of joint petitioners and that it
is immaterial whether the cards indicate a desire for
joint or individual representation. See Mid-South
Packers, Inc., 120 NLRB 495, fn.-1, and cases cited
therein. We are persuaded that when 30 percent of
the employees in a bargaining unit have indicated a
desire to be represented by one or the other or two
unions, and the two unions then offer themselves as
joint representatives of the employees, the petition-
ing unions have demonstrated enough employee in-
terest in their attaining representative status to war-
rant holding an election.6
4. The parties agree, and we find, on the basis of
the entire record that the following unit is ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at
the St. Louis, Missouri, plant of St. Louis Inde-
pendent Packing Company, including gang
leaders, full-time scalers, and part-time scalers,
but EXCLUDING the superintendent,
assistant superintendent, chief engineer, night
superintendent, general foremen, foremen,
assistant foremen, doctor, timekeeper, head
4 The Machinists' failure to serve all parties with its request for review
was not prejudicial , in view of the proper service on all parties of the Meat
Cutters' request for review, which raised the identical issue of the
propriety of the Regional Director's disposition of the petitions The Meat
Cutters' request was filed within the time limits prescribed by Section
102 114 of the Board's Rules and Regulations
5 Also in issue at the hearing was the question of whether the "summer
employees" should be eligible to vote in any election which the Board
might direct , the Employer favoring and the Joint Petitioners opposing
their inclusion on the eligibility list. Since the election hereinafter ordered
will be held at a time when there are no "summer employees ," the issue is
moot and it is unnecessary for the Board to decide the question
8 We are administratively satisfied as to the adequacy of the Joint Peti-
tioners ' showing of interest , which is an administrative matter not subject
to litigation. 0. D. Jennings and Company, 68 NLRB 516
350-212 0-70-71
1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and assistant head of production incentive de-
partment, head and assistant head of receiving
department, head of fire department, plant pro-
tection employees, bell pullers, head of restau-
rant, chef, yardmaster, general office em-
ployees, superintendent's office employees,
mechanical office employees, time office em-
ployees, credit union clerical employees,
production incentive department employees,
full-time plant clerks, teamsters and chauf-
feurs, brick masons, nurses, plant matrons,
' An election eligibility list , containing the names and addresses of all
the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional
Director for Region 14 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and
Direction of Election . The Regional Director shall make the list available
to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be
dock checkers, the hog scaler, the beef scaler,
the small stock scaler, the beef loading scaler
and clerk, the cellar stock clerks, and all super-
visory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise ef-
fect changes in the status of employees or ef-
fectively recommend such action.
[Direction of Election7 omitted from publica-
tion.]
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances.
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside
the election whenever proper objections are filed. Excelsior Underwear
Inc., 156 NLRB 1236.