The Rath Packing Co.

In the Matter of THE RATH PACKING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, C. U. A., PETITIONER Cases Nos. 18-RC-407 and 18-RC-419.-Decided December 15, 1949 DECISION DIRECTION .OF ELECTION AND ORDER Upon separate petitions duly filed, a hearing in these consolidated cases 1 was held before Erwin A. Peterson, hearing officer. The hear- ing 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-member 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. For the reasons stated hereinafter, no question affecting com- merce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Em- ployer in Case No. 18-RC-407 within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. We do, however, find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer in Case No. 18-RC-419 within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner in these proceedings seeks to sever from an estab- lished plant-wide bargaining unit of production and maintenance employees separate departmental units of stockyard employees and coopers, . respectively. The employees in the proposed units work 1 The above numbered cases were consolidated by order of the Regional Director, dated July 6, 1949. 87 NLRB No. 90. 664 THE RATH PACKING COMPANY 665 in the Employer's meat packing plant at Waterloo, Iowa. Since 1942, United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local No. 46, C. I. 0., the Intervenor herein, has maintained collective bargaining relations with the Employer and has entered into collective bargaining agree- ments covering the Employer's production and maintenance employ- ees, including the employees in the proposed units. The Intervenor contends that the units sought by the Petitioner are inappropriate principally because of the history of collective bargaining on a more comprehensive basis. The Employer takes no specific position with respect to the appropriateness of the units sought. The alleged appropriate unit in Case No. 18-RC-407 In this case the Petitioner seeks to represent in a separate bargain- ing unit the employees in the stockyard department. There are ap- proximately 40 employees in this department. These employees are primarily concerned with the handling and care of livestock and in bringing the animals into the slaughtering areas of the plant. No experience is necessary to qualify for jobs in the stockyard department and the employees in the department exercise no special skills in the discharge of their duties. The stockyard department employees are not a craft group nor do they constitute a departmental group with a tradition of separate representation of the type which, in the past, we have held may be appropriately severed from a more inclusive established bargaining unit. In view of the foregoing, including.the fact that these employees have been represented since 1942 in the same unit with the Employer's other production and maintenance employees, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner in Case No. 18-RC-407 is inappropriate,2 and we shall, therefore, dismiss the .petition. The alleged appropriate unit in Case No. 18-RC-419 In this case the Petitioner requests severance of the employees in the cooperage department. The principal functions of these employees are to make and repair all barrels, tierces, and vats required for the storage and shipment of various products of the plant. It requires at least 2 years' experience to obtain the skills of a cooper. Of the eight employees in the proposed unit, six are skilled in the coopers' trade and the other two employees, although unskilled, are being trained on the job. There is no interchange of duties or functions between the coopers and the other employees in the plant. Although several other departments include employees known as packers and 2 General Aniline d Film Corporation, Ansco Division, 80 NLRB 1352; C. T. Dearing Printing Company, 79 NLRB 1020 ; K-D Lamp Division, Noma Electric Corporation of Maryland, 71 NLRB 704. 666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tierce headers who also work on barrels, these latter employees are not skilled and are not qualified to do coopers' work. The employees in the proposed unit comprise a skilled, homogeneous, and readily identifiable craft group such as may constitute a separate bargaining unit, notwithstanding their previous'inclusion in a broader bargain- ing unit .3 However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of the employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority of the employees in the voting group described below vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit represented by the Petitioner. We shall direct an election among the following employees of the Employer at its Waterloo, Iowa, plant: All employees in the cooper- age department, excluding the foreman and other supervisers as defined in the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 4 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 super- vision 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 voting group described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding this Di- rection of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tempo- rarily 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 National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, C. U. A., or by United Pack- inghouse Workers of America, Local No. 46, C. I. 0., or by neither. ORDER IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 18-RC-407 by International Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, C. U. A., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 3 Swift Company, 59 NLRB 1417. See Liggett & Myers. Tobacco Company, 74 NLRB 513, 516: * Any participant in the election herein may , upon its request to and approval thereof by the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.