Swift & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 755 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

SWIFT & COMPANY 755
do so only under special circumstances and within very narrow limits.
Thus, in pledging the credit of their Employer, the discretion exer-
cised by the procurement drivers is restricted to a very small area. I
would find, therefore, that they are not so closely allied to manage-
ment as to preclude their inclusion in the unit of production and main-
tenance employees herein found appropriate.
Swift & Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America , Local 615, AFL-CIO and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America , Local 758, Joint -Petitioners. Cases
Nos. 18-RC-2616 and 18-RC-26.2. Marcia 9, 1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon consolidated petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hjalmar
Storlie, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, 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 its main office in
Chicago, Illinois, and is engaged in the sale and distribtuion of meat,
meat products, dairy, and poultry products. It has various places of
business located throughout the United States.
The two cases consolidated herein, deal with the dairy and poultry
operations located atDetroit Lakes, Minnesota (Case No. 18-RC-2616)
and Montevideo, Minnesota (Case No. 18-RC-2622). At each of the
plants the Petitioners seek a separate unit of production and mainte-
nance employees. The parties are in general agreement as to the
composition of the unit, but disagree as to unit placement of pro-
curement route drivers and seasonal employees.
The procurement drivers, in a prescribed territory, maintain con-
tact with and purchase poultry from proprietors of buying stations
and farmer-producers, and haul the poultry back to the plant on their
trucks. They make preliminary decisions with respect to grading and
pricing. They represent the Employer in the purchase, pickup, and
issuance of credits to those from whom they buy poultry. In another
115 NLRB No. 113.
756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
decision involving drivers with similar duties and responsibilities, the
Board found that procurement drivers were Imanagerial employees.'
We find that the procurement drivers involved in this case are likewise
managerial and we exclude them from the unit hereinafter found
appropriate.
Quite an. upsurge in the Employer's business occurs from around
the middle of August to the first of December during the turkey sea-
son. At the time of the hearing, September 30, there were approxi-
mately 150 employees at Detroit Lakes and between ,145 to. 150 at
Montevideo. During regular periods other than the seasonal expan-
sion, the Detroit Lakes plant has approximately 40 employees and
the Montevideo plant approximately 50 employees. Additional em-
ployees needed for increased seasonal work are secured by radio and
newspaper advertising and are, in the majority, farmers and house-
wives. The turnover during the season is extremely high-at the
time of the'' hearing about 6 weeks after the opening of the current
season, there had been approximately 50 percent turnover at the
Montevideo plant. Not more than from 2 to 5 percent of the season
workers return the following season. The seasonal employees are
told that the work is temporary, and at the end of the season they are
dropped from the payroll without promise of recall. They do not
share in the vacation, insurance, or hospitalization plans of the Em-
ployer as these plans are available only to employees with. 6 months'
continuous service. In view of the irregular and temporary nature
of their employment, we exclude seasonal employees from the unit
and find them ineligible to vote in the election directed hereafter.2
There remains for consideration the supervisory status of certain
classifications , many of which the parties agree to exclude from the
unit. The manager of the Detroit Lakes plant testified as to the duties
and responsibilities of the following classifications at the Detroit
Lakes plant : That the chief engineer is directly responsible for
maintenance of all equipment including heating and refrigeration and
has effective authority to recommend hiring, firing, and discipline of
personnel ; that the shipping foreman, in the absence of the superin-
tendent, is the man in charge and that he has effective authority over
employees ; that the dressing and eviscerating foreman, the packing
foreman , the eggroom foreman, the butter foreman, and the feeding
station foreman have authority to effectively recommend hiring, fir-
ing, and discipline of employees. The manager of the Montevideo
plant testified that the shipping and receiving foreman, the eggroom
foreman, the printroom foreman, the creamery foreman, and the chief
1 Swift d Company, 115 NLRB 752. In view of his dissent in the foregoing case,
Member Peterson in conformity therewith would include the procurement drivers in the
production and maintenance unit.
2 See Producers Rice Mill, Inc., and Producers Dryer, Inc., 106 NLRB 119; cf. Imperial
Rice Mills, Inc., 110 NLRB 612; Nephi Processing Plant, Inc ., 107 NLRB 647.
SWIFT & COMPANY 757
engineer at the Montevideo plant have supervision of employees and
have authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing, and discipline
of employees. On the basis of this testimony, we find that the chief
engineer, the shipping foreman, the dressing and eviscerating fore-
man, the packing foreman, the eggroom foreman, the butter foreman,
and the feeding station foreman at the Detroit Lakes plant are super-.
visory within the meaning of the Act, and that the shipping and re-
ceiving foreman, the eggroom foreman, the printroom foreman, the
creamery foreman, and the chief engineer at the Montevideo plant are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and exclude them from the
unit herein found appropriate. We also exclude from the units the
following classifications in accordance with the agreement of the
parties : Managers, assistant managers, fieldmen, plant superintend-
ents, salesmen, all hatchery personnel, and all office clerical employees.
The following employees constitute separate appropriate units for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees in the Employer's dairy
and poultry plant located at Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, excluding
seasonal employees, procurement drivers, all office clerical employees,
managers, assistant managers, fieldmen, plant superintendents, sales-
men, hatchery employees, chief engineer, shipping foreman, dressing
and eviscerating foreman, packing foreman, eggroom foreman, butter
foreman, feeding station foreman, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
All production and maintenance employees in the Employer's dairy
and poultry plant located at Montevideo, Minnesota, excluding sea-
sonal employees, procurement drivers, all office clerical employees, man-
agers, assistant managers, fieldmen, plant superintendent, salesmen,
hatchery employees, chief engineer, shipping and receiving foreman,
eggroom foreman, printroom foreman, creamery foreman, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The petitions in these cases were filed jointly by the Petitioners.
The Employer moved to dismiss the petitions asserting that the Board
is without jurisdiction to entertain a joint petition and that, in this
instance, a joint petition is improper. At the hearing the Employer
introduced a copy of the agreement between the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, and the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work-
men of North America, which delineates and defines the jurisdiction
of each union. The financial secretary and treasurer of the Amalgam-
ated Meat Cutters, Local 615, testified, however, that it was the
intent of the Petitioners to bargain jointly. The Board has considered
the contention of the Employer in several previous cases, and in view
of the fact that the Petitioners have stated that they intend to bar-
758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gain jointly for, the units found appropriate has found joint petitions
proper.' , We shall deny the motion to dismiss. The names of the Pe-
titioners will appear jointly on the ballot, and, if they are successful
in the election hereinafter directed, they will be certified jointly as the
bargaining representative of, the employees in the appropriate units.
The Employer may then insist that the Petitioners bargain jointly for
such employees as separate units.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
3 Swift and Company, 114 NLRB 159; J. J. Moreau S Son, Inc., 107 NLRB 999 ; Son.oco
Products Company, 107 NLRB 82.
WTOP, Inc. and Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers & Tech-
nicians, Local No. 1215, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . (lase No. 5-RC,-175.. March 9,
1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On November 30, 1955, the Board issued a Decision and Order,'
finding that assistant directors who comprise a majority of the re-
quested unit of assistant, directors and floor directors are supervisors,
and dismissing the petition. Thereafter, on December 9, 1955, the
Petitioner filed with the Board a motion for rehearing en bane. The
Employer filed a brief in opposition to the Petitioner's motion, and
the Petitioner submitted a memorandum in answer to the Employer's
opposition.
In its motion the Petitioner requests, first, that the board en bane
reconsider its determination that assistant directors are supervisors
because of the fundamental character and far-reaching consequences
of such a determination of supervisory status. The original decision
in this case was made by a quorum of the Board, with 3 of the 4 mem-
bers who then composed the Board participating. At that time the
question of the supervisory status of assistant directors was fully
examined and the matters raised by the Petitioner's first request were
thoroughly considered. No basis appears for a reconsideration of
the supervisory issue by all five present members of the Board. The
request for reconsideration en bane is denied. Similarly, a majority
of the members who participated in the original decision (Chairman
Leedom and Member Rodgers) find no basis for granting the request
for reconsideration of the merits of that decision and hereby deny it.
The Petitioner asks, alternatively, for a unit of floor directors,
should the Board adhere to its former determination that assistant
directors are supervisors. The floor directors, like the assistant di-
1 114 NLRB 1236.
115 NLRB No. 117.