Swift & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 713 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of SWIFT & COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED PACKING,-
HOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 16-R-1713.-Decided August °L6, 1946
Messrs. Arthur R. Curtis and J. C. Berghoff, of Chicago, Ill., for the-
Employer.
Messrs. Gobel F. Cravens and Buck Whittaker, of Oklahoma City,.
Okla., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Martin E. Rendelman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on_
May 29, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees of
the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether
or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were 7 eligible voters, all of
whom cast valid ballots in favor of the Petitioner.
Thereafter, hearing in the case was held on June 27, 1946, at Okla-
homa City, Oklahoma, before Earl Saunders, Trial Examiner.- At
the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on various
grounds. For reasons set forth in Section IV, infra, the said motion
is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations.
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Swift & Company is an Illinois corporation with its principal office
and place of business in Chicago, Illinois. This proceeding involves.
only the Employer's Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, dairy and poultry
plant, which is engaged in the processing and manufacturing of dairy
70 N. Lr R. B., No. 56.
713
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and poultry products. During the year immediately preceding the
date of the hearing herein, the Employer purchased and used in its
operation of the Oklahoma City plant approximately $1,000,000 worth
of dairy and poultry products, approximately 7 percent of which was
shipped to the plant from points outside the State of Oklahoma.
During the same period the plant produced dairy and poultry prod-
ucts valued in excess of $1,200,000, approximately 50, percent of
which was shipped and sold to points outside the State of Oklahoma.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and. (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit comprising all foremen employed in
the Employer's dairy and poultry plant at Oklahoma City, Okla-
homa, excluding the plant manager, plant superintendent, and all
other employees. The Employer contends that the proposed unit is
inappropriate because (1) its foremen are managerial representatives
and therefore not employees within the meaning of the Act; (2) a
bargaining unit composed of the foremen in question would not ef-
fectuate-the purposes of the Act; and (3) the Petitioner presently
represents the production and maintenance employees in the depart-
ments supervised by these foremen 1
The foremen herein, performing the usual supervisory duties as-
sociated with their classification, are in complete charge of their
respective departments, which perform production and maintenance
work, and are responsible only to the plant manager and the plant
superintendent. It is clear from the record and conceded by the
I At a consent election conducted under , the auspices of the"Board on May 29 , 1946, the
Petitioner received a majority of the votes cast and was designated by the Regional Di-
rector as exclusive bargaining agent for the production and maintenance employees (Case
No 16-R-1712).
SWIFT & COMPANY 715
parties that these foremen are supervisory employees within the
meaning of the Board's customary definition. Both the Board 2 and
the courts 3 have held, however, that in relation to their employer,
supervisors are "employees" within the meaning of the Act. Accord-
ingly, we find that the foremen involved in this proceeding are
"employees" within the meaning of the Act.
In its brief the Employer maintains that the establishment of a
unit of its foremen would not effectuate the purposes of the Act. In
recent cases' we have considered similar arguments and found them
to be without merit. As pointed out therein, the purpose of the Act
is to encourage the practice of collective bargaining as a means of
settling labor disputes, and this purpose is as applicable to labor
controversies involving supervisory employees as to those involving
rank and file, employees. Accordingly, we reject the Employer's
similar contention herein.
The issue raised by the Employer with respect to the propriety of
permitting the same or affiliated labor organizations to represent both
the supervisory and non-supervisory personnel of a single employer
has in recent cases' been considered and determined by the Board in
favor of allowing employees an unrestricted choice in their selection
of a bargaining representative. For the reasons set forth in these
cases, we find that there is no impropriety in representation by the
Petitioner of separate units of foremen and non-supervisory employees,
of the Employer.
We find that all foremen at the Employee's plant in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, excluding the plant manager , plant superintendent and
all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
IV. Till,, DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that
the Petitioner has received a majority of the votes cast, and we shall,
therefore, certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
2 Matter of Soss Manufacturing Company , et at., 56 N L R B 348 , Matter of Packard
Motor Car Company , 61 N L R. B. 4, and 64 N . L. R. B. 1212 ; Matter of L A. Young
Spring if Wire Corporation , 66 N. L R B 298 , Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corpora-
tion , Vesta-Shannopina Coal Division, 66 N. L . R. B. 386.
8N. L. R. B. V. Armour & Co., 154 F. ( 2d) 570 (C C. A. 10) ; Jones & Laughlin Steer
Corporation v. N. L. R. B , 146 F. ( 2d) 833 (C. C A. 5) ; N. L. R. B. v. Skinner it Kennedy
Stationery Company, 113 F (2d) 667 (C. C A. 8).
"Matter of L A. Young Spring it Wire Corporation, supra ; Matter of Sinclair Refining
Company, 69 N. L. R B. 970
5 Matter of Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division , supra;
Matter of Curtis Bay Towing Company of Pennsylvania, 66 N. L R B . 1152 ; Matter of
Sinclair Refining Company, supra
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY' CERTIFIED that United Packinghouse Workers of
America, CIO, has'been designated and selected by a majority of all
foremen in the employ of Swift & Company at its Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, plant, excluding the plant manager and plant superin-
-tendent 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, as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, the said organization is the exclu-
'sive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective
bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
-and other conditions of employment.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in Matter of Pack-
ard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, and Matter of Jonesi 'dc
Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, 66 N.
-L. R. B. 386, 1 am compelled to disagree with the opinion herein.