Swift and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 159 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

SWIFT AND COMPANY 159
Swift and Company and Amalgamated Meatcutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America , Local No. 368, AFL, and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America , Local No. 483, AFL, Joint Peti-
tioners . Case No. •19-RC-1666. September 2,0, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Orville W. Turnbaugh,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists 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 Employer is an Illinois corporation with the main office in
Chicago, Illinois, engaged in the sale and distribution of meat and
meat products with places of business located in many of the States.
This proceeding involves the Employer's sales unit located at Boise,
Idaho, which is engaged solely in, distribution of meat and meat prod-
ucts in and about that geographical area. A manager in charge of
the sales unit testified that a superintendent was responsible to him
for the operational part of the business, the sale and shipment of
carcass meat in the same form as purchased from slaughtering and
processing plants, and that the head of the cut meat department was
in charge of that part of the operation involving the sale and fabri-
cating (i. e. boning and cutting) of the carcass meat into small cuts
for retail trade and consumer usage.
The Petitioners and the Employer agree substantially on the ap-
propriate unit. They differ as to the inclusion of the two outside
salesmen and as to whether or not the head of the cut meat department
is a supervisor. At this Boise, Idaho, sales unit the Employer regu-
larly employs, besides the manager, the superintendent, the cut meat
department head, 2 outside salesmen, 1 truckdriver, and a "part-time
student. All persons except the truckdriver and the part-time em-
ployee are salaried and receive vacation benefits different from the
hourly paid employees.
The two outside salesmen are directly responsible to the manager,
and perform their duties of contacting customers and taking orders for
114 NLRB No. 38.
160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
future delivery in a company-owned passenger car. Unlike hourly.
paid employees who work only 40 hours, they work 48 hours per week.
Only when an emergency arises do they make any deliveries, and then
it is usually a very small order. In view of the fact that their interest
and general working conditions appear to be different from those•of
other employees, we shall exclude them from the unit.'
The cut meat department head is responsible for the preparation
and sale of fabricated cuts of meat, and for the establishment of the
price that it sells for in order to operate the department at a profit.' He
spends about 50 percent of his time boning and cutting meat, about
25 percent of his time on outside sales works, and the remaining 25
percent making telephone sales and performing general office duties.
The manager testified that the department head had specifically been
given the authority to hire and fire, and that although there had been
no occasion to exercise the latter authority, he had hired an employee,
and that he decides when he needs extra help and calls in the nonregu-
jar, part-time employees who work under his direction. Two weeks
prior to the hearing the full-time meat cutter in this department left
the Employer and works now only on nonregular part-time basis, re-
porting only when notified to do so by the department head. When
a regular employee, the meat cutter received approximately 25 percent
less than the department head. At the present time, the department
head has no full-time employees in the department. However, a part
time, college student spends a small percentage of his time under the
direction of the department head. We find that the cut meat'depart-
ment head possesses the authority to hire and fire and responsibility
to direct employees working in the cut meat department. 'Accordingly,
we shall exclude him from the unit as a supervisor.
We,find that all employees in the Employer's Boise, Idaho, sales unit
excluding the manager, superintendent, cut meat department head, the
salesmen , clerical employees, 'guards, and supervisors as defined in ,the
Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The petition in this case was filed jointly by the Petitioners. The
Employer moved for dismissal of the petition contending that in this
instance a joint petition is improper as the Petitioners have no inten=
tion to represent or bargain jointly for a single bargaining unit. To
substantiate this 'assertion, the Employer offered an exhibit which the
hearing officer rejected, which purports to be a copy of an agreement
between the two Petitioners clearly defining the jurisdiction' of each
union to the exclusion of the other. Although at the hearing, each
union claimed the, employee within its jurisdiction established, by.this
",1Naagana Beer ' Distributor8 _ dsaoeiataon, 108 NLRB 1571; Progres8ive Matrix Company,
93 NLRB 383.
FISHER PRODUCTS COMPANY 161
agreement, we find that it is not'conclusive that the Petitioners will not
bargain on a joint basis for the unit herein found appropriate. We see
no reason"to depart from our past practice in such cases and shall deny
the motion to dismiss.' The names of the Petitioners will appear
jointly on the ballot, and, if they are successful in the election herein-
after directed, they will be certified jointly as the bargaining repre=
sentative of the employees in the entire appropriate unit. The Em-
ployer may then insist that the Petitioners bargain jointly for such
employees as a single unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2J. J. Moreau & Son , Inc., 107 NLRB 999; Sonoco Products Company, 107 NLRB 82.
Fisher Products Company and Local 404, Upholsterers ' Inter-
national Union of North America , AFL. Case No. 4-RC-2591.
September 22,1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election,' an election
by secret ballot was conducted on April 5, 1955, under the direction and
supervision of the,Regional Director for the Fourth Region, among the
employees, in the appropriate unit. At the conclusion of the election;
the parties were-furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of
approximately 34 eligible voters, 7 voted for and 15 against the, Union
and 12 votes were challenged.
Thereafter, on April 13,,1955, the Union filed objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election. On May 26, 1955, the Regional
Director issued and duly served upon the parties his report and rec-
ommendation on challenges and objections, in which he recommended
that the challenges be sustained and that the objections be overruled
on,the ground that they had not been timely served upon the Employer.
Thereafter the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Di-
rector's report and a supporting brief.
As stated, the election was held on April 5, 1955. The objections
were not filed in the Regional Director's office until April 13, 1955, and
were not actually 'received by the Employer until April 14. Section
102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations requires that objections
be.-filed with the Regional Director within 5 days of the receipt of
the tally of ballots and that copies of the objections immediately be
'1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and'Orders.
114 NLRB No. 37.
I