Swift and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1946

67 N.L.R.B. 262 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of SWIFT AND COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0.
Case No. 18-R-1351.-Decided April 11, 1946
Messrs. Arthur R. Curtis and L. A. Van Fossam, both of Chicago,
Ill., for the Company.
Messrs. E. R. Fitzpatrick and John A. Jordan, both of Chicago,
Ill., for the C. I. 0.
Mr. Kenneth Somers, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and Mr. H. W. West,
of Marshalltown, Iowa, for the A. F. of L.
Mr. Don Mahon, of Des Moines, Iowa, and Messrs. Leslie Krough,
Ray Kopel, and Ralph Brown, all of Marshalltown, Iowa, for the
Brotherhood.
Mr. Jerome J. Dick, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Packinghouse Workers of
America, C. I. 0., herein called the C. I. 0.., alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Swift and Company, Marshalltown, Iowa, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
approproate hearing upon due notice before Clarence A. Meter, Trial
Examiner. The hearing was held at Marshalltown, Iowa, on Feb-
ruary 21, 1946. The Company, the C. I. 0., National Brotherhood
of Packinghouse Workers, Local No. 50, C. U. A., herein called the
Brotherhood, and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America, Local No. 574, A. F. of L., herein called the A. F.
of L., appeared and participated .1 All parties were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the hearing, the Brother-
hood moved that the petition be dismissed. The Trial Examiner re-
1 The Brotherhood and the A . F. of L. filed motions to intervene which were granted
at the hearing by the Trial Examiner
67 N. L. R. B., No. 36.
262
SWIFT AND COMPANY 263
served ruling on the motion for the Board. For the reasons which
appear in Section III, below, the motion is granted. The Trial Ex-
aminer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case , the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Swift and Company is an Illinois corporation with its principal
office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois. The Company is en-
gaged in the business of meat packing and processing , operating plants
in numerous States throughout the United States. Only the Company's
Marshalltown, Iowa, packing plant is involved in this proceeding. The
Company purchases all of its livestock for the Marshalltown plant
from stockyards located within the State of Iowa. During the year
1945, the Company shipped processed meat, exceeding $10,000,000 in
value, to points outside the State of Iowa.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce 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.
National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, Local No. 50, is a
labor organization affiliated with the Confederated Unions of America,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, Local No. 574, is a labor organization affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees
of the Company.
Ill. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In November 1942, the Brotherhood was certified by the Board as
the bargaining representative for the employees here concerned, and
the Brotherhood and the Company executed a contract, retroactively
effective as of August 20, 1942, to continue in operation until August
11, 1943, and for annual periods thereafter, "subject to reopening by
either party on written notice mailed at least thirty days prior to
August 11 of any year." This contract was renewed automatically in
1943. Before the 1944 effective date of the renewal clause, the A. F. of
L. apprised the Company of its rival claim to representation. Upon
264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Company's refusal to bargain with it, the A. F. of L. filed a repre-
sentation petition with this Board 2 An election was then held in
accordance with the Board's Direction,8 the Brotherhood, the A. F. of
L., and the C. I. O. having appeared on the ballot. The Brotherhood
won this election and was certified by the Board on October 13, 1944.
On May 15,1945, the Brotherhood and the Company entered into a new
agreement for a term expiring August 11, 1946. Thereafter, on July
6, 1945, the C. I. O. notified the Company of its claim to represent the
employees, and on July 7, filed its petition herein.
The Brotherhood raises the May 15, 1945, agreement as a bar to this
proceeding. But the C. I. O. insists that, having asserted its rival
claim in timely fashion insofar as the 1942 contract is concerned, the
1945 agreement cannot be considered to preclude a present determina-
tion of representatives inasmuch as it is nothing more than a premature
extension of the earlier contract.4
This Board has unanimously held that a certified union is entitled
to a reasonable time (usually 1 year) in which, undisturbed, it may
bargain collectively for the employees it represents.5 Thus, at the
time of the completion of the 1945 agreement, approximately 7 months
after its certification, the Brotherhood's status was not subject to
challenge and it was entitled to exercise its rights as a bargaining rep-
resentative. Moreover, in the Kimberly-Clark case 6 it was held that
a contract of reasonable term, automatically renewed about 7 months
after certification, effectively barred a representation proceeding for
the period of its duration, despite the fact that a rival claim had been
asserted prior to its renewal.7 Even assuming, therefore, that the
C. I. O.'s claim had been made before the execution of the 1945 contract
in this case, under the Kimberly-Clark doctrine it would nevertheless
be a bar, unless it is, as the C. I. O. contends, no more than a prema-
ture extension of the 1942 agreement. In these circumstances, how-
ever, the principle of premature extension is not applicable. To hold
otherwise would be to compel a union to adhere to an agreement made
before its certification and prevent it from executing a new one in
pursuance of such designation, as is its right. We find, consequently,
that the agreement of May 15, 1945, bars the instant proceeding, and
we shall dismiss the petition."
The C. I. 0. Intervened in the proceeding.
8 Matter of Swift and Company, 58 N. L. R. B. 12.
4 See Matter of Memphis Furniture Mfg. Co., 51 N. L. R. B . 1447; Matter of Wichita
-Union Stockyards Company , 40 N. L R. B'369.
6 See Matter of Aluminum Company of America, Newark Works, 57 N . L. R. B. 913;
Matter of Bohn Aluminum and Brass Corporation , 57 N. L . R. B. 1684.
6 Matter of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, 61 N. L . R. B. 90.
° See also Matter of American Woolen Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 1045.
8 Matter of Swift and Company , 66 N. L . R. B. 845.
SWIFT AND COMPANY
ORDER
26&
The National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition
for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of
Swift and Company, Marshalltown , Iowa, filed by United Packing-
house Workers of America , C. I. 0., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.