Armour & Co.

In the Matter of ARMOUR & COMPANY, EMPLOYER ana INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 63, A. F. L., PETI- TIONER Case No. 31-RC-583.-Decided January 26, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner and United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, herein called the Intervenor, are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,' for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to represent in a single unit all mechanic lead men, carpenter lead men, carpenters, first-class mechanics, plumbers, steam fitters, electricians, blacksmiths, pipe fitters, second-class me- chanics, scale men, welders, engineers, temperature men, and elevator operators at the Employer's Los Angeles, California, plant. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate. *Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray. The Company and the Intervenor contend that a contract currently in effect between them, allegedly covering the employees involved herein, constitutes a bar to this proceeding. In view of our disposition of the case , we have not considered this contention. 81 N. L R. B., No. 50. 302 ARMOUR & COMPANY 303 The Employer is engaged in purchasing and slaughtering live- stock, and processing and distributing meat products and byproducts. It operates more than 30 plants throughout the United States. The Los Angeles plant is the only one involved in this case. Since 1938, when the Intervenor was certified 2 as exclusive bargaining agent, it has represented the employees in the Los Angeles plant on a plant- wide basis. The unit sought is composed of the employees of three separate de- partments : the maintenance or, as it is sometimes called, mechanical department, the boiler room or motive power department, and the elevators. The employees in the mechanical department work out of the maintenance shop, and repair all types of equipment used in the plant. They are classified as carpenters, mechanics, plumbers, electricians, welders, blacksmiths, and scalemen, but no individual is confined to the performance of duties normally assigned to his classi- fication. The elevator men operate three elevators located in different parts of the plant. The staff of the motive power department con- sists of five licensed engineers who operate the boilers and work full time in the boiler room, and four temperature men whose headquar- ters are in the boiler room, but whose work takes them throughout the plant. The temperature men regulate and maintain the refrig- eration equipment. The three departments are under the supervision of the head me- chanic and his assistant. Each department, however, has its own seniority list. There is no interchange of employees among the three departments, although a transfer system upon a plant-wide basis has long been established. A substantial number of the employees in- volved in this case secured their present positions through transfers from other departments. The employees in these three departments constitute a multi-craft group such as we have held may not be severed from an over-all plant- wide unit for which collective bargaining has successfully been con- ducted.' We find, therefore, that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 2 Matter of Armour f Company, 8 N L R. B 973 3 Matter of K3mberln Clark Corporation, 78 N L R B. 478; Matter of George S Mepham Corporation, 78 N. L. R B 1081.