Wilson & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 991 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of WILSON & Co., INC., EMPLOYER and TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, HELPERS AND TAXICAB DRIVERS, LOCAL UNION #327,
PETITIONER
Case No. 10-R-2143.-Decided December 12, 1946
Mr. M. W. Meyers, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer.
Mr. C. C. Locke, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ralph Winkler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a first amended petition duly filed, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board on October 4, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among
employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to deter-
mine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 85 eligible
voters, of whom 43 voted for the Petitioner, 35 voted against the
Petitioner, and 2 voted under challenge.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Nashville, Tennessee, on October
23, 1946, before Thomas T. Purdom, hearing officer. The hearing of-
ficer's rulings made at the hearing are fiee from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OP FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Wilson & Co., Inc., is a Delaware corporation having its principal
office in Chicago, Illinois. This proceeding is solely concerned with
the Employer's plant In Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where it is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cheese, butter, eggs, and
dressed poultry. During the fiscal year ending September 20, 1946,
the Employer purchased raw materials valued at approximately
71 N. L. B B, No. 169.
717 734-47-vol 71-64 991
992- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
$500,000 for use in its Murfreesboro plant, of which 10 percent was
obtained from sources outside the State of Tennessee. During the
same period, the Employer sold approximately $500,000 worth of
finished products, of which 90 percent was shipped out of the State.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer?
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of its employees 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 meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in accordance with a stipulation of the parties, that all
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant at
Murfreesboro, Tennessee, including firemen and truck drivers, but
excluding all office employees, field men, plant manager, assistant plant
manager, office manager, creamery superintendent, assistant super-
intendent on butter, assistant superintendent on cheese, laboratory
technician foreman, receiving department foreman, engineering super-
intendent, assistant engineering superintendent, poultry division su-
perintendent, assistant poultry division superintendent, egg breaking
foreman, picking department foremen, packing department foreman,
feeding department foreman, 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 ac-
tion, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held before the hearing show that the
Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast and that the
' The Emplovei questioned the right of the Petitioner , under the latter ' s constitution,
to represent the employees here involved The Petitioner accepts these employees as mem-
hers and has been designated by then as the exclusive bargaining representative More-
over , there is no showing that the Petitioner will not adequately represent these employees.
Accordingly , we find no merit in the Emplovei ' s contention hatter of Nilson o Co
Inc, 61 N L R B 617 , Matter of Nilson f Go, Inc, 61 N L. R. B 895, 896
WILSON & CO., INC. 993
challenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of
the election. Accordingly, we shall certify the Petitioner as the col-
lective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate
unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATI VES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Helpers and
Taxicab Drivers, Local Union #327, has been designated and selected
by a majority of all production and maintenance employees at the Mur-
freesboro, Tennessee, plant, of Wilson & Co., Inc., Chicago, Illinois,
including firemen and truck drivers, but excluding all office employees,
field men, plant manager, assistant plant manager, office manager,
creamery superintendent, assistant superintendent on butter, assistant
superintendent on cheese, laboratory technician foreman, receiving
department foreman, engineering superintendent, assistant poultry di-
vision superintendent, egg breaking foreman, picking department fore-
men, packing department foreman, feeding department foreman, and
all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employ-
ees, or effectively recommend such action, as their representative for
the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section
9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative
of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment.