Swift and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 880 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of SWIFT AND COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Cases Nos. 4-R-1751,18-R-1335, and 16-R-1355_. Decided
November 01, 1945
Messrs. Clarke Munn, Jr., J. L. Pike, John E. Blevin"s, William N.
Strack, and John P. Staley, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. W. F. Joy, of
Boston, Mass., for the Company.
Mr. Lemuel Ward, of New York City; Mr. Milton Siegel, of St.
Paul, Minn. ; Messrs. Lindsay P. Walden and A. J. Pittman, of Fort
Worth, Tex.; and Mr. Ralph Helstein, of Chicago, Ill., for the C. 1. 0.
Mr. Don Mahon, of Washington, D. C.; and Mr. George M. Hauck,
of Mechanicsburg, Pa., for Union No. 1 of the Independent.
Mr. Emil G. Paape, of Winona, Minn., for Local 1021 of the
Independent.
Mr. W. J. Pattie, of Minneapolis, Minn., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. Don Mahon, of Des Moines, Iowa; Mr. J. T. Kelly, of Dallas,
Tex. ; and Mr. Walter Butler, of Chicago, Ill., for the N. B. P. W.
Mr. Tom Lillard, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Plan of the Inde-
pendent.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On separate petitions duly filed by United Packinghouse Workers
of America, a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, herein called the C. I. 0., each alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Swift and Company, Chicago, Illinois, herein called
the Company, at three plants of the Company hereinafter named, the
National Labor Relations Board provided for separate appropriate
hearings upon due notice. The respective hearings were held as
64 N. L. R. B., No 150
880
SWIFT AND COMPANY 881
follows : in Case No. 4-R-1751, on June 25, 1945 , at Harrisburg, Penn-
sylvania, before Eugene M. Purver , Trial Examiner ; in Case No.
18-R--1335, on July 20, 1945 , at Winona , Minnesota , before Stanley D.
Kane, Trial Examiner; and, in Case No. 16-R-1355, on July 10, 1945,
at Dallas , Texas, before Elmer Davis , Trial Examiner. From the
location of the three plants of the Company herein concerned, which is
also the place of the hearing in each case , these cases are hereinafter
respectively identified as the Harrisburg, the Winona, and the Dallas
cases.
At the hearing on the Harrisburg case, the Company, the C. I. 0.,
and Employees ' Independent Union No. 1, a labor organization af-
filiated with the Independent Brotherhood of Swift Employees, herein
called Union No. 1 of the Independent, appeared and participated. At
the hearing on the Winona case , the Company, the C. I. 0., Local 1021,
Independent Brotherhood of Swift and Company Employees, herein
called Local 1021 of the Independent, and Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America, herein called the Amalga-
mated, appeared and participated. At the hearing on the Dallas case,
the Company, the C. I. 0., Swift Employees Negotiation Plan, a labor
organization affiliated with Independent Brotherhood of Swift Em-
ployees, herein called the Plan of the Independent, and National
Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, herein called the N. B. P. W.,
appeared and participated. All parties at the several hearings were
afforded frill opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. During the
course of each hearing the local of the Independent respectively con-
cerned, and in the Dallas case the N. B. P. W., also, moved that the
petition in the case be dismissed. The Trial Examiners did not rule
on the several motions. For reasons which appear in Section III,
below, the several motions are denied except insofar as production
and maintenance employees at the Dallas plant are concerned. The
rulings made by the Trial Examiners at the several hearings are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were af-
forded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Pursuant to notice, a consolidated hearing was held before the Board
at Washington, D. C., on October 2, 1945, for the purposes of oral
argument. The Company, the C. I. 0., and the N. B. P. W., on behalf
of the several locals of the Independent, its affiliate , appeared and
participated. The Amalgamated did not appear.
The Board hereby orders, and the three cases are consolidated for
the purposes of decision.
Upon the entire records in these proceedings, the Board makes the
following :
670417-46-vol. 64-57
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Swift and Company is an Illinois corporation with its principal
office and place of business at Chicago, Illinois. The Company is
engaged in meat processing and meat packing and operates many
plants throughout the United States. Employees of the Company's
plants at Harrisburg in Pennsylvania, Winona in Minnesota, and
Dallas in Texas are principally involved in these proceedings.
With respect to its Harrisburg plant, during the fiscal year ending
October 28, 1944, the Company purchased livestock, materials, and
supplies, valued in excess of $2,000,000, of which approximately 25
percent was shipped to the plant from points outside Pennsylvania.
During the same period, the Company sold materials and other prod-
ucts manufactured at its Harrisburg plant, valued in excess of $3,000,-
000, of which approximately 52 percent was sold and delivered to
points outside Pennsylvania. With respect to the Winona plant,
during the last fiscal year, the Company purchased livestock, valued
in excess of $10,000,000, approximately 45 percent of which came to the
plant from States other than Minnesota. During the same period,
the Company processed at the Winona plant products, valued in ex-
cess of $11,000,000, of which 97 percent was sold and shipped from the
plant to customers outside Minnesota. With respect to the Dallas
plant, during the year 1944, the Company purchased livestock, sup-
plies, and other materials, valued in excess of $5,000,000, of which
approximately 23 percent was purchased outside Texas. During the
same period, the Company sold meat and other products finished at
the Dallas plant, valued at $6,000,000, of which approximately 26
percent was shipped outside Texas.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce, with respect
to each of the three plants herein involved, within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Packinghouse Workers of America is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
Employees' Independent Union No. 1, Local 1021, and Swift
Employees Negotiation Plan are labor organizations, chartered by
International Brotherhood of Swift Employees, affiliated with Na-
tional Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, C. U. A., admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America is a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed-
SWIFT AND COMPANY 883
eration of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Com-
pany.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Swift and Company processes meat at many plants throughout
the United States. Employees at several meat plants are represented
by the C. I. 0., by International Brotherhood of Swift Employees,
herein called the Independent, and by the Amalgamated, respectively.
Each of these three labor organizations negotiates with the Company
contracts of 1-year duration, covering all employees at the Com-
pany's meat plants respectively represented by them through their
local unions. Employee representation is generally newly acquired
by the several labor organizations by plant units. When any labor
organization acquires representation of employees at a new plant
during a contract year, such employees are, by negotiation with the
Company, deemed covered by the master contract between that or-
ganization and the Company. The terminal date of all these master
contracts is August 11. The contracts provide that they are auto-
matically renewable unless opened by either party by written notice
30 clays prior to August 11 of any given year. The contracts, how-
ever, further in oN ide that they may b:; opened once during the contract
year by appropriate notice for negotiation as to wages. In 1944, the
.Amalgamated and the C. 1. O. opened their master contracts for labor
negotiations by appropriate notice before August 11, the annual ter-
minal date. The Independent did not open its master contract before
August 11, but after August 11,' exercising its option, the Independent
gave appropriate notice that it desired to open its master contract as
to wages. The master contract of the Independent covers employees
at several plants. including employees at the Harrisburg, Winona,
and Dallas plants, who are directly involved in these proceedings.
Subsequent to August 11, 1944, contested issues between the Company
and ilie Independent as to wages were submitted to the War Labor
Board for settlement. Oil February 20, 1945, the War Labor Board
i ssl led a supplementary directive to the effect that the Company and
the Independent should negotiate with respect to certain issues between
them, embody their agreement on these issues in writing, and report
back to the War Labor Board for approval. At this time the Company
clearly asserted its position that, if wages were to be increased at that
mid-point in the course of the normal contract year, the terms of the
master contract should be extended to August it, 1946, without any
further negotiation as to wages.
1The iecords in the several cases do not specifically disclose the date after August 11 on
-,vhich the Independent gave notice to the Company to open the contract as to wages It
is cleat that the date v,as prior to December 26, 1944, since a contract negotiated on that
date, concerning employees at the Dallas plant, indicates that contested issues were then
pending in a proceeding before the war Labor Board.
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 15, 1945, the Company and the Independent executed a
supplement to their master contract, embodying their agreement as to
wage increases and extending the term of the master contract to Au-
gust 11, 1946. On May 23, 1945, the War Labor Board approved the
contract. The Independent contends that its master contract, thus
supplemented and extended, constitutes a bar to a determination of
representatives among employees at the Harrisburg, Winona, alad
Dallas plants, respectively. Since the sequence of events leading to
the filing of the petition differs in each of the three cases before us,
we will treat the cases separately at this point.
A. The Harrisburg plant
On April 30, 1945, while the Company and the Independent, as
directed by the War Labor Board, as noted above, were engaged in
formulating their supplementary master contract, the C. I. 0. asked
the Company for recognition as bargaining representative of em-
ployees at the Harrisburg plant. The Company refused, contending
that its current contract with the Independent terminating August
11, 1945,•constituted an immediate bar to recognition of another labor
organization during the term of the contract. On May 5, the C. I. 0.
filed the petition in Case No. 4-R-1751, covering employees at the
Harrisburg plant. On May 15, 1945, as set forth above, the Company
and the Independent entered into a new contract, supplementing their
master contract and providing that the same should be extended to
August 11, 1946. On May 23, 1945, the War Labor Board approved
the new contract.
The Independent now takes the position that the new-supplemen-
tary master contract approved by the War Labor Board and extending
the contract term to August 11, 1946, constitutes a bar to a determina-
tion of representatives for employees at the Harrisburg plant at this
time.2 We do not agree. The claim of the C. I. 0. was clearly made
at a time when a master contract between the Independent and the
Company was due to terminate on August 11, 1945, and prior to the
execution of the May 15 supplemental contract. A contract made
subsequent to the claim of a rival union is not a bar to an election.3 We
find that the supplementary master contract executed on May 15 does
not constitute a bar to a present determination of representatives for
employees at the Harrisburg plant.
2 Independent Union No 1, urging the Allis Chalmers doctrine as a bar, is clearly not
dependent upon the negotiation of the recent contract for proof to the employees for whom
it is the recognized bargaining repreentative of its efficacy as a bargaining representative,
and it must now look to the employees themselves foi affirmation and continuation of its
sole as such. See Matter of Rane Tool Company, Inc, 63 N L It B 352, and cases cited
therein
I Matter of The Mead Corpo> atoon , Ilcald Division, 63 N L. R B 1129.
SWIFT AND COMPANY 885
B. The Winona plant
On April 20, 1945, Local 1021 of the Independent, the recognized
representative of employees at the Company's Winona plant, notified
the Company that it desired to open the contract renewed as of August
11, 1944, and on April 28, requested a bargaining conference. As
noted above, on May 15, 1945, the Company and the Independent,
with which Local 1021 is affiliated, entered into a supplementary
plaster contract, which the War Labor Board on May 23 approved,
covering, inter alia, employees at the Winona plant. On June 18,
1945, some 3 or 4 weeks later, the C. I. O. made its initial demand on
the Company for recognition as.bargaining representative of em-
ployees at the Winona plant, and the Company refused the
recognition.
The Independent contends that the supplementary master contract,
executed on May 15, extending the term,of the master contract to
August 11, 1946, constitutes a bar to a determination of representa-
tives for employees at the Winona plant. We do not agree. Since
the supplementary contract of May 15 constitutes a premature exten-
sion of the then existing master contract terminating on August 11,
1945, we find that the supplementary master contract of May 15, 1945,
does not constitute a bar to a determination of representatives for
employees at the Winona plant at this time 4
C. The Dallas plant
The petition covering the Company's employees at Dallas covers
two distinct groups of employees (a) production and maintenance
employees at the Dallas meat processing plant and (b) employees at
the Dallas Branch House, a sector of the sales and distribution divi-
sion of the Company's operations, under separate supervision, but
located on the same property as the meat processing plant at Dallas.
The Company's branch houses elsewhere are located on property apart
from the meat processing houses. Bargaining relations for branch
house employees and for employees at meat packing plants are by
custom entirely separate. Thus, employees at the Company's branch
houses have not been covered under the master contracts of the several
labor organizations representing the Company's production and main-
tenance employees at the meat processing plants. The Independent's
master contract, the validity of which is in issue here as a bar to a
4 See Matter of Memphis Furniture Manufacturing Company , 51 N L R B. 1447, Mat-
ter of Michigan Light Alloys Corporation, 58 N. L . R B 113 ; and Matter of Virginia-
Lincoln Corporation , 63 N. L. R B 590
Chairman Herzog does not join in so much of the decision as applies the "premature
extension" doctrine to the Winona plant, being doubtful whether that doctrine should
govern where a premature extension is made in good faith and in the absence of any con-
flicting claim or knowledge thereof.
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
determination of representatives for production and maintenance
employees at the meat processing plant, does not concern employees
at the Dallas Branch House. The contract here in issue therefore
constitutes no bar to a determination of representatives for employees
not directly concerned therein.
With respect to employees at the meat processing plant at Dallas,
the following events are pertinent; (1) Prior to March 1944, Swift
Employees Negotiating Plan, herein called the Plan, was an unaffili-
ated labor organization made up of production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Dallas plant. This organization negotiated with the
Company, but entered into no formal contract on behalf of the Com-
pany's employees. In 1944 employees at the plant who were members
of the Plan decided to affiliate with International Brotherhood of
Swift Employees, herein called the Independent, retaining its old
name and becoming Local 15 of the Independent, herein called the,
Plan of the Independent. The Company, on request, refused to recog-
nize the Plan of the Independent as bargaining representative of its
employees and would not execute a written contract unless and until
the Plan of the Independent were certified by the Board. Pursuant
to a petition for certification filed in Case No. 16-R-1080, the Regional
Director conducted a consent election and, on November 23, 1944,
announced that the Plan of the Independent had won the election.
(2) On December 26, 1944, the Company and the Plan of the Inde-
pendent entered into a contract, providing that the master agreement
between the Company and the Independent, concerning which dis-
puted issues were then pending before the War Labor Board, should
be applicable to employees at the Dallas plant. (3) In April, the
C. I. O. commenced its organization of the Company's employees at
Dallas and held its first organizational meeting on April 12. On
April 23, the C. I. O. asked the Company for recognition as bargaining
representative of employees at the Dallas plant. On May 15, the
supplementary master contract between the Independent and the Com-
pany was finally executed and, on May 23, the same was approved
by the War Labor Board. The Independent contends that this master
contract as supplemented and extended to August 11, 1946, is a bar
to a determination of representatives at this time among employees
at the Dallas plant. We agree with this contention.
The Plan of the Independent became the bargaining representative
of the Company's employees at Dallas on November 23, 1944, and its
first contract with the Company, executed-on December 26, recited
that the provisions settling the disputed issues then pending before
the War Labor Board for approval should be incorporated into the
contract. The War Labor Board subsequently imposed on the parties
SWIFT AND COMPANY 887
the negotiation of a supplementary contract. The supplementary
contract executed on May 15, 1945, and approved on May 23 by the
War Labor Board must be identified as the first fruits of bargaining
achieved by the Plan of the Independent since its selection as bar-
gaining representative by these employees. Absent unusual circum-
stances, the Board will not order an election less than 1 year after
a prior certification.5 That a comprehensive contract was not achieved
until a substantial part of the year was passed was not due to fault
or neglect on the part of the newly designated representative. The
term of the completed contract, in view of the delays incident to the
submission of disputed issues to the War Labor Board, is not un-
reasonable. Because the Plan of the Independent is a newly desig-
nated organization, and it has not, as such, had an ample opportunity
to enforce its contract and thus demonstrate its ability as a bargain-
ing representative to represent employees at the Dallas plant, we
find that the contract between the Company and the Independent con-
stitutes a bar to a determination of representatives with respect to
these employees 6
Statements prepared by Board agents and received into evidence
at the respective hearings indicate that the C. I. 0. represents a sub-
stantial number of employees at the Company's Harrisburg and Wi-
nona plants in the units hereinafter respectively found appropriate.'
We find that no question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of production and maintenance employees at the
Dallas plant within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act, and we shall dismiss the petition covering em-
ployees at Dallas so far as it affects these employees.
We find that questions have arisen concerning the representation
of employees at the Company's Harrisburg and Winona plants and
at the Dallas Branch House, respectively, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Matter of Aluminum Company of America , Newark Works , 57 N. L. R. B. 913.
Matter of American Marsh Pumps, Inc., 59 N L. R B 1084
7 The Field Examiner reported that the C I. O. submitted 49 authorization cards, 43 of
which bore the names of employees on the Company 's pay roll of May 21, 1945 , for the
Harrisburg plant In addition to its current contract, the Independent submitted 79
authorization cards dated in June 1945 , bearing the names of employees on the Harrisburg
pay roll. In view of the current contract , these cards were not checked against the
pay roll.
There are approximately 119 employees in the unit appropriate for the employees at
the Harrisburg plant.
The Field Examiner reported that the C I. O. had submitted 94 authorization cards,
all of which bore the names of employees on the Company 's pay roll of June 26, 1945, for
employees at the Winona plant ; and that the Amalgamated submitted 8 authorization
cards bearing the names of the employees on the same pay roll. The Independent sub-
mitted no cards, relying on its contract for its showing of interest among these employees.
There are approximately 120 employees in the unit found appropriate for the employees
at the Winona plant.
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
A. The Harrisburg plant
The parties in interest agree that the appropriate bargaining unit
for employees at the Harrisburg plant should include all production
employees, excluding all general office employees, livestock buyers
and yardmen, plant clerks, checkers and timekeepers, standards de-
partment employees , employment office employees , receiving clerks,
plant -protection employees , part-time workers , the superintendent,
general foremen , foremen, assistant foremen, the chief engineer and
master mechanic, and all other supervisory employees. The C. I. 0.
would exclude, and the Company and the Independent would include,
maintenance employees.
There are approximately 12 maintenance employees in the Harris-
burg plant. The C. I. 0. bases its claim for their exclusion on the sole
ground that it has not organized maintenance employees. We find no
merit in this claim. The Independent is the recognized bargaining
representative of the plant unit, and maintenance employees have been
a part of the bargaining unit and covered by the contracts between
the Company and the Independent. The record discloses no reason
why maintenance employees should, at this stage of the bargaining
history, be excluded from the unit. We will , therefore , include main-
tenance employees in the ,appropriate unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Company's Harrisburg plant, excluding all general office employees,
livestock buyers and yardmen, plant clerks, checkers and timekeepers,
standards department employees, employment office employees, re-
ceiving clerks, plant-protection employees, part-time workers, the
superintendent , general foremen, foremen, assistant foremen, the chief
engineer and master mechanic, and all other supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote , discharge , discipline , or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
B. The Winona plant
The parties in interest agree, and we find, that all production and
maintenance employees at the Company 's Winona plant , excluding all
general office employees , the superintendent 's secretary, the supply
and discrepancies clerk, livestock buyers, assistant buyers, clerks,
scalers, plant clerks , timekeepers , standards department employees,
employment office employees , receiving clerk, plant -protection em-
ployees, part -time workers , the superintendent , general foremen, f ore-
men, assistant foremen, the chief engineer and master mechanic, and
SWIFT AND COMPANY 889
all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
C. The Dallas plant
As noted above , the Company 's employees at Dallas include not
only the production and maintenance employees at the meat process-
ingTlant , concerning the representation of whom we have found no
question has arisen , but also employees at the Dallas Branch House,
whom the C . I. O. claims to have organized and whom the C. I. O.
would include in the same unit with production and maintenance em-
ployees of the meat processing plant.
On May 31, approximately 3 weeks after the C. I. O. filed its peti-
tion for certification in the Dallas case , the Independent asked the
Company for recognition as bargaining representative of the Dallas
Branch House employees as a separate bargaining unit . Employees
in the Dallas Branch House, whom the two labor organizations desire
to represent , include employees classified as truck drivers , boners,
helpers, and checkers, excluding salesmen and accounting department
employees and clerical and supervisory employees . The Independent
and the Company contend that these employees constitute a separate
bargaining unit. Since branch house employees are not regularly
included in the same bargaining unit with meat processing employees,
and since employees in the Dallas Branch House have never been rep-
resented in the past by any labor organization, we find that employees
at the Dallas Branch House constitute a separate appropriate bargain-
ing unit.
We find that all employees at the Company 's Dallas Branch House,
excluding salesmen, accounting department employees, clerical em-
ployees, and all supervisory employees who have authority to hire,
promote, discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees , or effectively recommend such action , constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by separate erections by secret ballot among
employees in the respective appropriate units who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Decision and Direction of Elections , subject to the limitations and
additions set forth in the Direction.
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation
and certification of representatives of employees of Swift and Com-
pany, Chicago, Illinois, filed in Case No. 16-R-1355, by United Pack-
inghouse Workers of America, C. I. 0., be, and it hereby is, dismissed
so, far as it pertains to employees at the meat processing plant at
Dallas, Texas.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9, (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Swift and Com-
pany, Chicago, Illinois, separate elections by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible, but not later than sixty (60) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Directors for the Fourth, Eighteenth, and Sixteenth
Regions, respectively, acting in this matter as agents for the National
Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and
11, of said Rules and Regulations, among employees in the respective
groups noted below, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in
the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in
person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or re-
instated prior to the date of the elections :
(1) Among all production and maintenance employees at the Com-
pany's Harrisburg plant in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by United
Packinghouse Workers of America, C. I. 0., or by Employees' Inde-
pendent Union No. 1, National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Work-
ers, C. U. A., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither;
(2) Among all production and maintenance employees at the Com-
pany's Winona plant in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by United
Packinghouse Workers of America, C. I. 0., or by International
Brotherhood of Swift Employees , Local 1021, or by Amalgamated
SWIFT AND COMPANY 891
Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, A. F. L., or by
none; and
(3) Among all employees at the Dallas Branch House in the unit'
found appropriate in Section IV, above, to determine whether they
desire to be represented by United Packinghouse Workers of America,
C. I. 0., or by Swift Employees Negotiation Plan, for the purposes of
collective bargaining, or by neither.