Swift & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 1064 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of SWIFT & COMPANY, EMPLOYER and AMALGAMATED
MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F.
OF L., PETITIONER
Case No. 17-R-1070.'-Decided August 30, 1946
Mr. J. C. Berghoff, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer.
Mr. Fred Giitli, of Wichita, Kans., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Jerome J. Dick, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at-Garden
City, Kansas, on July 9, 1946, before William C. Baisinger, Jr., Trial
Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the
Employer moved to dismiss the petition. For reasons stated in Sec-
tions III and IV, infra, this motion is hereby denied.
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, an Illinois corporation with its principal offices
in Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the business of purchasing and
slaughtering livestock, marketing the products and by-products
thereof, and purchasing, processing, and marketing poultry, dairy,
and other food products. The Employer's Garden City plant is solely
involved in this proceeding. At this plant the Employer is engaged
in processing poultry and eggs, manufacturing creamery butter, and
producing baby chicks. During the year 1945, the Employer purchased
for use at its Garden City plant materials and supplies exceeding
$500,000 in value, the majority of which originated in the State of
Kansas. During the same period, the Employer produced at this plant
70 N. T. R. B, No. 88
1064
SWIFT & COMPANY 1065
finished materials exceeding $800,000 in value, the majority of which
was shipped to points outside the State of Kansas.
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 American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer has declined to recognize the Petitioner as the collec-
tive bargaining representative of the supervisory personnel involved
in this proceeding 1 on the ground that, as supervisors, they are not
employees within the meaning of the Act. The status of supervisory
personnel has been considered in a number of cases. Both the Board 2
and the Courts 3 have held that, in relation to their employer, super-
visors are "employees" within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly,
we find that the supervisors involved in this proceeding are "employ-
ees" within the meaning of the Act.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks to enlarge the scope of the bargaining unit of
production and maintenance employees of the Garden City plant
which its Local 256 currently represents by adding thereto the plant's
feeding station foreman, poultry dressing foreman, poultry grading
foreman, print room foreman, receiving and shipping foreman,
creamery foreman, hatcheryman, chief engineer, and egg foreman; '-
in the event that the Board finds that these employees are supervisors,
the Petitioner seeks to have them established in a separate supervisory
unit. But the Employer maintains that these workers are managerial
1 The Petitioner, in opposition to the Employer, contends that the individuals involved in
this proceeding are not supervisory employees ; however, in Section IV, infra, we find them
to be supervisory.
2 Matter of Soss Manufacturing Company, et at., 56 N. L. R. B 348 ; Matter of The Mid-
land Steel Products Company, Parish & Bingham Division , 65 N. L R. B. 997.
3N. L. R. B. v. Armour & Co., 154 F. ( 2d) 570 (C. C. A. 10, November 5, 1945 ) ; Jones
& Laughlin Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 146 F. (2d) 833 (C. C. A. 5) ; N. L. R. B. V.
Skinner & Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F. (2d) 667 (C. C. A. 8) ; N. L. R. B. v.
Packard Motor Car Company, 157 F. (2d) 80 (C. C A 6, August 12, 1946).
* At the date of the hearing the Employer did not employ a print room foreman or a
poultry dressing foreman because it was then operating during its slack season.
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
personnel and that they cannot constitute an appropriate- unit; and
that in any case it would not be in consonance with the Act for the
Petitioner, whose local is the representative of rank and file employees
at the Garden City plant, to represent that plant's supervisors.
The employees involved herein are department heads who form the
lowest level in the supervisory hierarchy at the Garden City plant.
Each department head supervises the employees in his department, is
responsible for the quantity and quality of this work, and keeps time
records and other data relating to their efficiency. In addition, he
effectively recommends the hire, discharge, discipline, and reclassifica-
tion of his subordinates. Moreover, the, department head represents
management in the first step of the grievance procedure outlined in
the collective bargaining agreement covering the rank and file em-
ployees. Under the circumstances, we find that these department
heads are supervisory employees, and, accordingly, we shall not pro-
vide for their inclusion in the existing unit of non-supervisory pro-
duction and maintenance employees.
The Employer asserts that the individuals involved herein are direct
representatives of management and, on this premise, urges that they
cannot form an appropriate unit. In Matter of Jones cf Laughlin
Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division,5 however, we dis-
cussed the purpose and policy of the Act. We pointed out that the
National Labor Relations Act was intended to encourage the practice
of collective bargaining as a means of settling labor disputes, that this
policy was as applicable to labor disputes involving supervisors as to
those pertaining to rank and file employees, and that there could be
an appropriate unit of supervisory employees. Accordingly, we find
no merit in the Employer's position.
The Employer also contends that the Petitioner may not represent
the personnel involved herein because its local presently represents the
plant's rank and file employees. We have in recent cases, however,
considered and rejected similar contentions.6 We held in those cases,
as we do here, that the Board had no power to place any limitation on
the right of supervisory employees to select for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, representatives of their own choosing. We shall,
however, place them in a separate bargaining unit, and not merge
them in the existing production and maintenance unit.
We find that the feeding station foreman, poultry dressing foreman,
poultry grading foreman, print room foreman, receiving and shipping
foreman, creamery foreman, hatcheryman, chief engineer, and egg
foreman of the Employer's Garden City, Kansas, plant, excluding all
5 66 N. L R B 386 . See also Matter of L A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65
N. L. It. B. 298.
6 See e. g., Matter of The Curtis Bay Towing Company of Pennsylvania , et at., 66 N L.
R. B. 1152.
SWIFT & COMPANY 1067
other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Swift ^C Company, Garden City,
Kansas, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Di-
rection, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Seventeenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10
and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate in Section IV, above, 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 reinstated
prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they de-
sire to be represented by Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, A. F.,of L., for the purposes of, collective
bargaining.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.