H. L. Handy Co.

In the Matter of SWIFT AND COMPANY, DOING BUSINESS AS H. L. HANDY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and LOCAL 602, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 1-RC-500.Decided January 31, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION 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 labor organizations named below claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : 2 The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of engineers and firemen in the Employer's plant at Chicopee, Massachusetts, excluding all other 1 The Amalgamated Meatcutters and Butcher Workers, AFL, and The Internationat Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL, Local 443, hereinafter called the Intervenors, were allowed to intervene at the hearing over the objection of the Petitioner, as amicus curiae, upon the ground that they had general interest in the nature of any unit established at any of the Swift plants. *Reynolds , Murdock, and Gray. T The original petition herein was dismissed by the Regional Director upon the groumt that the history of collective bargaining had been on a multi-plant basis. However, all the parties hereto have now stipulated and agreed : (1) that the master agreement between the UPWA and the Employer has at all times constituted a bargaining agreement for individual single-plant units , and (2) that all the parties are opposed to the establishment of a multi- employer unit. We find, therefore, in accordance with the above, that the history of col- lective bargaining at the Employer's plant has been on an individual-plant basis. 81 N. L. R. B., No. 74. 425 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees and supervisors as defined by the Act. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the only appropriate unit is an over-all production and maintenance unit in conformity with the past bargain- ing at the Employer's plant.3 The Employer and the Intervenor further contend that the engineers and firemen perform duties so closely integrated with the production process at the plant, that a separate unit would be inappropriate. It appears from the record that the Employer is engaged in the slaughtering, processing, and marketing of hogs. The main building of the plant is used principally for processing, storing, and in some cases, for producing frozen food products. The Employer's boiler and engine rooms are housed in separate quarters 4 which not only provides heat, compression, and steam for the main plant, but also supplies to the refrigeration units used for the storage of hog products and, in some instances, power for the quick-freezing of products destined for the frozen food market. In the Employer's powerhouse are employed five firemen and four engineers, all of whom hold licenses from the State of Massachusetts and are engaged in the operation and maintenance of the powerhouse equipment.5 However, where major break-downs occur, the over-all maintenance crew is called in to perform necessary repairs. The evi- dence is clear that the employees involved rarely, if ever, have any occasion to go to other parts of the Employer's plant, and that their only contact with the employees of other departments is through an employee called a "temperature man" whose function is merely to re- lay instructions to engineers as to steam, water, refrigerant, or com- pressed air requirements in the main plant. Although the engineers and firemen come under the same supervision as the over-all mainte- nance employees at the Employer's plant,° and are grouped for sen- iority purposes with the maintenance employees, there is no interchange between these groups of employees.' Moreover, although the Employer utilizes relatively large quantities of refrigerated air in its operations, it is evident that these products are not a component of the end-product of its operations. This fact, in our opinion, dis- tinguishes the present case from cases like the Lynn Gas and Electric Company case relied upon by the Employer." Thus, in contrast with 3 The United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, has bargained for a production and maintenance unit, including engineers and firemen at the Employer's plant since 1944. 4 There is no connecting door from the engine and boiler rooms to other parts of the Employer 's plant. An outside door is the only means of ingress or egress. ° A witness for the Employer stated that these employees were highly skilled. ° The plant engineer. 4 Testimony at the hearing reveals one isolated case where a temperature man, who hap- pened to have a firemen 's license required by the State , performed fireman duties and was next in line for a fireman job. ° Matter of Lynn Gas and Electric Company, 78 N. L. R. B. 3; see also Matter of Boston Consolidated Gas Co., 79 N. L. R. B. 337. H. L. HANDY COMPANY 427 such cases, it appears that the functions of the present employees are comparable to those of powerhouse employees, who despite previous history of collective bargaining on a broader basis, are held separable from an over-all unit, if they so desire.9 In view of the lack of interchangeability of these employees with other employees of the Employer, their separate facilities and work stations, their functional independence with respect to the production employees, and upon the entire record in this case, we believe that the engineers and firemen may constitute a homogeneous, readily identi- fiable, and functionally coherent group, appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We find that all engineers and firemen in the Employer's Chicopee, Massachusetts, plant, excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined by the Act, may constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall be guided in part by the desires of these em- ployees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 10 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 60 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the voting group referred to in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay- roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Local 602, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, or by Local 245, United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, or by neither. 9 Matter of C. A. Swanson & Sons, 81 N. L. R. B. 321 ; Matter of Crocker, Burbank & Co., Asscn., 80 N. L. R. B. 774; Matter of Worthy Paper Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 19; Matter of Wilson & Co. Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 1466. 10 Any participant in the elections directed herein may , upon its prompt request to, and approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.