Swift & Co. Refinery

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 945 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

SWIFT & COMPANY REFINERY 945
392 has attempted to cause and has caused Carrier Corporation to discriminate against
its employees , particularly William C. Lester, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act, and thereby did engage in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8
(b) (2) of the Act.
4. The unfair labor practices found herein are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. Respondents Local 799 and James Switalski have not engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of the Act with respect to William C. Lester.
6. By causing Carrier Corporation to discrmlinate against William C. Lester in
violation of Section 8 (a) (3) the Respondent Local 392 has engaged in unfair labor
practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
7. The Respondent Local 392, by the aforementioned acts, have restrained and co-
erced employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act,
and did thereby engage in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A ) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Swift & Company Refinery and United Packinghouse Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-3727. March
39,1957
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 Hugh Frank Malone,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and
Rodgers].
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.'
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the - Intervenors motion at the hearing to
dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner is fronting for a labor organization
which is not in compliance with Section 9 of the Act . The record shows that Local #142,
affiliated with the Petitioner , which formerly represented the Employer 's employees, has
not been in compliance since December 31, 1954 The record further shows that, on
November 4, 1954, after Local # 142 lost an election in the instant plant , the Petitioner
appointed an administrator to handle the affairs of Local #142 and that since that date
Local #142 has had no officers or members , conducted no meetings , collected no dues,
processed no grievances , nor in any other way functioned as an active labor organization.
In view of the foiegoing , the fact that the administrator 's appointment has never been
formally revoked and the fact that the former members of Local #142 have never been
issued withdrawal cards as required by the Petitioner 's constitution does not preclude
our finding that Local #142 is no longer in existence . Accordingly , we find that Local
#142 is defunct and that, consequently, its noncompliance is no bar to Petitioner 's right
to maintain this petition on its own behalf . Ozark Manufacturing and Supply Company,
108 NLRB 1476
'Local # 51, National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers ( Independent), herein
called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest.
117 NLRB No. 136.
42378 -1-57-vol 117- Cl
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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, an Illinois corporation, operates a plant at At-
lanta, Georgia, its only plant involved in this proceeding, where it
is engaged in the business of processing animal and vegetable products.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance employees
who are currently represented by the Intervenor.3 The parties are
in general agreement as to the composition of the unit. The Em-
ployer and the Petitioner, however, would exclude five plant clericals
whom the Intervenor would include in the unit, while the Employer
and the Intervenor would exclude, and the Petitioner would include,
an employee who performs cleanup tasks and acts as a messenger for
the office department. The foregoing 6 employees have all been ex-
cluded from the historical production and maintenance unit which
has been in existence for approximately 15 years.
The Employer contends that the Intervenor may not properly seek
to add the plant clericals to the unit petitioned for without making
a showing of interest among these employees. The intervenor has
failed to submit any authorization cards signed by the plant clericals,
stating at the hearing that it was relying solely upon its contract
as satisfying the Board's showing requirements. We find merit in
the Employer's contention. As the foregoing clerks are not covered
by the Intervenor's contract, they could not, in any event, be added
to the existing unit without a separate, self-determination election.4
It is incumbent upon the intervenor, however, as the only union
seeking an election among these clerks, to establish through employee
designations a sufficient showing of interest to justify the holding
of such an election among these employees.' As no such showing has
been made by the Intervenor, we reject its request that the plant
clericals be added to the existing unit."
As pertains to the employee who acts as office messenger and also
performs cleanup duties in the office department, the record shows
that he spends the major portion of his time delivering messages and
materials to points away from the plant, such as taking drafts to
the bank. This employee spends the remainder of his time in per-
forming janitorial services in the office department, is under the su-
pervision of the office manager, and has little contact with any pro-
3 The Intervenor was certified on November 8, 1954, following a consent election
(Case No. 10-RC-2888) Thereafter, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a 2-year
contract which expired on January 24, 1957 . This contract is not urged as a bar by
either party-
4 White Provision Company, 116 NLRB 1552; The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134.
B Cf. International Minerals & Chemical Corporation, 113 NLRB 53
6 In view of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the other objections
raised by the Employer and the Petitioner to'the plant clericals' inclusion in the unit
hereinafter found appropriate =
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 947
duction and maintenance employees.' In view of the foregoing, we
find that the interests of this employee, who is primarily an office
messenger, are more closely allied with those of the other office and
office clerical employees than with those of the production and main-
tenance employees, and we shall, therefore, exclude him from the
unit .8
Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Em-
ployer's Atlanta, Georgia, plant constitute an appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, including truckdrivers,
but excluding office and office clerical employees, the office messenger-
janitor, plant clerical employees, standards department employees,
laboratory employees, professional employees, plant protection em-
ployees (watchmen), assistant foremen and foremen, the master me-
chanic, the plant superintendent, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
• [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7 The only such contact occurs once every 3 or 4 months , when production department
janitors aid him in a major cleanup operation in the office department.
s Barnhardt Manufacturing Company, 103 NLRB 261; J. P. Stevens if Co, Inc.,
93 NLRB 1513, 1516.
General Motors Corporation , Fisher Body Division, Marion,
Indiana Plant 1 and International Union , International Associa-
tion of Tool Craftsmen , N. I. U. C., Petitioner
General Motors Corporation , Fisher Body Division , Marion,
Indiana Plant and International Union , United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
affiliated with American Federation of Labor and Congress of
Industrial Organizations , (UAW-AFL-CIO),2 Petitioner
General Motors Corporation , Fisher Body Division , Marion,
Indiana Plant and Patternmakers League of North America,
District No. 4, AFL-CIO,3 Petitioner . Cases Nos. 35-RC-1379,
35-RC-1393, and 35-RC-1396. March 29, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John H. Rodgers, hearing
1 The name of the Employer in all three proceedings appeals as amended at the hearing.
3 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing
3 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing to reflect its affiliation
with the AFL-CIO.
117 NLRB No. 135.