Swift & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 2, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 398 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices having occurred in connection with the
operation of Respondents ' business as set forth in section I, above, have a close,
intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, and substantially affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act
[Recommendations omitted from publication 7
Swift & Company and National Brotherhood of Engineers,
Firemen & Power Equipment Operators , Petitioner. Case
No 30-RC--1760 February 2, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Allison E Nutt, hearing
officer The hearing officer's rulmgs made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]
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 Petitioner, referred to herein as NBE, and the Intervenor,
United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 88, AFL-CIO, are
labor organizations claiming to represent certain employees of the
Employer a
3 No 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 for the reasons given
below.
The Petitioner seeks to sever the employees in the engmeroom
department of the Employer's packing plant at Denver, Colorado,
from a production and maintenance unit represented by the Inter-
venor The Employer and Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition,
contending inter alia, that NBE, ostensibly organized to represent
powerhouse employees, is fronting for an industrial union, National
'After the bearing the Petitioner requested the Board to issue a consolidated decision
for this case and for Iowa Packing Company, Dwmzon of gwsft & Company, Case No
18-RC039, which was then pending before the Board The request to consolidate the
two cases was, in effect, denied by the issuance of a separate Decision and Order In the
Iowa Pae'kang case on December 31, 1959 (125 NLRB 1405), but the Board considered
the record made In this proceeding before issuing the decision in Iowa Packing The
testimony of Claude H Ericson, a witness in the earlier proceeding, was Incorporated
into this record by the agreement of the parties
°The Employer and the Intervenor refused to stipulate that NEE was a labor organiza-
tion However, we affirm our finding in Iowa Packing Company, supra, that NBE is a
tabor organization within the meaning of section 2(5) of the Act
126 NLRB No 5O
SWIFT & COMPANY 399
Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers (herein called NBPW), for
the purpose of circumventing the "traditional representative" test as
set forth in American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB
1418.
The identical issue was considered in Iowa Packing Company, Di-
vision of Swift & Company, 125 NLRB 1408, which involved the
same Employer and the same international unions.' We found there
that NBE was not an independent, autonomous organization but was
merely a creature of the National Brotherhood of Packinghouse
Workers, an industrial union which was not a traditional representa-
tive of powerhouse employees and, accordingly, dismissed the peti-
tion. Our decision was based to a large extent on the testimony of
Erixson, the present executive secretary of NBE, who testified that
NBE had been established at a meeting which NBPW had called at its
national headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa. At this organizational
meeting, Erixson testified, a constitution was adopted and Mahon, na-
tional president of NBPW, was elected the executive secretary of
NBE. Erixson also testified that 9 months after the organizational
meeting, NBE held its second meeting with only three persons in at-
tendance-himself, Mahon, and Terry, who was president of Local 56,
NBPW. Shortly before this meeting Erixson had resigned as secre-
tary-treasurer of Local 56, NBPW, and Mahon had resigned as
executive secretary of NBE. At this meeting, the three individuals
present unanimously elected Erixson to the position just vacated by
Mahon.
Mahon was a witness at the hearing in this case, but did not testify
in the Iowa Packing proceeding, although he was present then. The
testimony of Mahon and Erixson relating to the organizational
meeting of NBE presents conflicting versions as to what led up to the
meeting and what transpired there. Mahon testified that besides
serving as national president of NBPW he is also the national secre-
tary of National Independent Union Council (herein called NIUC),
a federation to promote, organize, and assist independent unions.
Mahon testified that he assisted in organizing NBE, not as president
of NBPW, but as national secretary of NIUC; that the regional di-
rector of NIUC at St. Louis, Missouri, first advised him that a group
of 15 to 25 powerhouse employees, employed by a number of unnamed
employers, had expressed a desire to form a craft union of engineers.
Mahon said that he then forwarded sample constitutions of similar
labor organizations to assist these individuals in drafting a consti-
tution, and he then attended a meeting in St. Joseph, Missouri, where
NBE was organized. His story and Erixson's agree that at this
meeting Mahon was elected executive secretary of NBE,
8 The Intervenor in that case was Local 89, United Packinghouse Workers of America,
AFIr-CIO. The Intervenors in the two cases have been represented by the same counsel.
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We consider it strange that the only two individuals ever to hold
office in NBE should disagree on the circumstances surrounding the
foundation of NBE. Despite Mahon's explanation that NBE was not
organized under the auspices of NBPW, we nevertheless consider that
his testimony has not rebutted the inference that NBE's formation was
first thought of, and was completely implemented, by a handful of
NBPW officials. Despite Mahon's assertion that he assisted in the
foundation of NBE in his capacity as national secretary of NIUC, we
cannot disregard the fact that he was also national president of
NBPW, an industrial union which has in the past attempted to repre-
sent similar powerhouse units.4 Furthermore, it is undisputed that
Erixson was an official of an NBPW local just prior to NBE's second
meeting, and that he was elected executive secretary of NBE at a
meeting attended solely by three NBPW officials.
In these circumstances, we remain of the opinion that NBE is not
an autonomous labor organization and that it is not independent of
NBPW. In accord with the decision in Iowa Packing Company, we
again hold that NBE was organized as an arm of NBPW for the
purpose of circumventing the requirement that a labor organization
seeking to serve powerhouse employees must be a "traditional repre-
sentative" of such employees. We therefore grant the motions of the
Employer and the Intervenor to dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
A Mahon, Erixson, and Terry are all employed in the powerhouse department of the
Iowa Packing Company. Since 1944, NBPW has filed at least nine petitions in which it
sought to represent powerhouse units.
Arlington Hotel Company, Inc.' and Chauffeurs , Teamsters &
Helpers, Local 878, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Petitioner.
Case No. 32-RC-1250. February 2, 1960
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 John E. Cienki, 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, which, operates the Arlington Hotel in Hot
Springs, Arkansas, contends that the Board should not assert, juris-
diction in this matter because its operations do not affect commerce
within the meaning of the Act. We find no merit in this contention.
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the bearing.
126 NLRB No. Si.