Darling & Co.

In the Matter of DARLING & COMPANY,1 EMPLOYER and UNITED DAIRY AND BAKERY WORKERS, LOCAL No. 383, RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND DE- PARTMENT STORE UNION, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 7-RC-639.-Decided November 14, 19.19 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Harold L. Hud- son, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and Gray]. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 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 Petitioner seeks a plant-wide unit at the Employer's Flint, Michigan, branch.2 The Employer objects to the unit sought, con- tending that a multi-plant unit is the only appropriate one. The Employer, an Illinois corporation with its Michigan office and plant at Detroit, Michigan, is engaged in the production of tallow, hides, and skins. As part of its operations, it maintains four collec- tion stations,3 at which it collects meat scraps and other animal prod- ucts which are sent to the Detroit plant. The Employer contends that the Flint station is integrated with its other collection stations, and that the only appropriate unit should include the employees of all four stations.4 There is no bargaining history with respect to the Flint, 1 The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing. z At the time of the hearing, the employees sought consisted of five route men and two dockmen. s Three of which are located at Flint, Mason , and Marlette, Michigan, respectively, and one of which is located at Toledo, Ohio. * The Employer's position with respect to the inclusion of its Toledo station within the proposed multi-plant grouping is not clearly set forth in the record. The Employer stated 87 NLRB No. 11. 45 46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mason, or Marlette stations. The employees at the Toledo station have been bargained 'for by the UAW-CIO since about 1938. The employees at the Detroit plant have been bargained for by the Pack- ing House Workers, CIO, since 1941.. The several collection stations involved herein are geographically separated, the Michigan stations being approximately 50 to 60 miles apart. There is no interchange of employees, and the persons work- ing at one station have no contact with the employees of another.. Each station has its own separate immediate supervision.5 Although the work performed by the employees of the various stations is similar, this factor alone is insufficient to justify the appropriate- ness of a multi-plant unit. Under the circumstances, we believe that a unit confined to the employees of the Flint station is appropriate." We find that all employees at the Employer's Flint, Michigan, branch, excluding office and clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 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 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and su- pervision 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, among the employees in the unit found appropriate 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 va- cation 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 em- ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collec- tive bargaining, by United Dairy and Bakery Workers, Local No. 383, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, CIO. at the hearing that the Toledo station is in a different category from the others. However, we assume it to be the Employer's contention that the employees of all four receiving stations should be grouped together. s The parties agreed that the supervisor at the Flint station is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and therefore should be excluded. a See The Clark Thread, Company, 79 NLRB 542.