Omaha Packing Co.

In the Matter of OMAHA PACKING COMPANY and UNITED PACKING- HOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O. Case No. 1,i-R-3149.-Decided April 12,1946 Mr. John P. Staley, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company. Messrs. Harvey Mader and Re fugio Martinez, both of Chicago, Ill., for the C. I. O. Mr. Don Mahon, of Des Moines, Iowa, and Messrs. Walker Butler, James E. Moore, and Lawrence Berl fus, all of Chicago, Ill., for the Brotherhood. Mr. Jerome J. Dick, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by United Packinghouse Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the C. I. 0., alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Omaha Packing Company, Chicago , Illinois, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Benjamin B. Salvety, Jr., Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on March 4, 1946. The Company, the C. I. 0., and Employees Independ- ent Union, affiliated with the National Brotherhood of Swift Employ- ees, C. U. A., herein called the Brotherhood, appeared and partici- pated.' All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear- ing on the issues . The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. In its brief, the Brotherhood moved that the petition be dismissed . For reasons which appear in Section III, below , the motion is granted. 1 The Brotherhood Sled a motion to intervene prior to the hearing, which was granted at the hearing by the Trial Examiner. 67 N. L. R. B., No. 40. 304 OMAHA PACKING COMPANY 305 Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Omaha Packing Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Swift & Company, is an Illinois corporation with its plant and office in Chicago, Illinois. The Company is engaged in the manufacture and sale of meat products. During the calendar year 1945, the Company pur- chased meat, materials and supplies exceeding $6,000,000 in value, of which approximately 83 percent was received from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period, the Company's sales of finished products exceeded $6,000,000 in value, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Illinois. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Packinghouse Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , admitting to membership employees of the Company. Employees Independent Union is a labor organization affiliated with the National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, C. U. A., admit- ting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION From 1939 until 1942, the Brotherhood bargained as the repre- sentative of the employees here concerned pursuant to agreements with the Company. In 1943, the Brotherhood and the Company executed another contract retroactively effective as of August 20, 1942, to con- tinue in operation until August 11, 1943, and for annual periods there- after, "subject to reopening by either party on written notice mailed at least thirty (30) days prior to August 11 of any year." This con- tract was renewed automatically in 1943. Before the 1944 effective date of the renewal clause, the C. I. O. apprised the Company of its rival claim to representation. Upon the Company's refusal to bargain with it, the C. I. O. filed a representation petition with the Board in Case No. 13-R-2540. Premised upon this petition, the Regional Direc- tor conducted a consent election, the C. I. O. and the Brotherhood having appeared on the ballot. The Brotherhood won this election and was designated by the Regional Director on August 15, 1944, as exclusive bargaining representative. On May 15, 1945, the Brother- hood and the Company entered into a new agreement for a term 692148-46-vol 67-21 306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD expiring August 11, 1946.2 Thereafter, on June 6, 1945, the C. I. O. again notified the Company of its claim to represent the employees, and on June 16, 1945, filed its petition herein. The Brotherhood raises the May 15, 1945, agreement as a bar to this proceeding. But the C. I. O. insists that, having asserted its rival claim in timely fashion insofar as the 1942 contract is concerned, the 1945 agreement cannot be considered to preclude a present determi- nation of representatives inasmuch as it is nothing more than a pre- mature extension of the earlier contract.3 In Matter of Swift d Companyy,4 we held that a contract with a union made approximately 7 months after its certification could not be considered as a premature extension of an agreement which had been executed before its designation. "To hold otherwise," we said, "would be to compel a union to adhere to an agreement made before its cer- tification and prevent it from executing a new one in pursuance of such designation, as is its right." H Factually, the Swift case is virtu- ally identical to the present case, except that the contract here raised as a bar was executed 9 months, instead of about 7 months, after the contracting union's designation. This minor variance we deem to be insignificant, for we are persuaded that the doctrine of the Swift case is applicable to a new agreement made in bona fide pursuance of a designation at any time within the 1-year period following the des- ignation. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the May 15, 1945, contract cannot be viewed as a premature extension of the 1942 agree- ment. Inasmuch as the C. I. O.'s rival claim to representation was made after the execution of the May 15, 1945, contract, we find that the contract is at this time a bar to a determination of representatives.° ORDER The National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of Omaha Packing Company, Chicago, Illinois, filed by United Packing- house Workers of America, C. I. 0., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 2 Among other things, the renewal clause of the 1942 contract was embodied within the terms of the new agreement. 3 See Matter of Memphis Furniture Mfg. Co., 51 N. L. R B. 1447; Matter of Wichita Union Stockyards Company, 40 N. L. R. B. 369. 4 66 N. L. It. B. 845. ° See also Matter of Swift & Company, 66 N. L. R. B. 1288. To the extent that Matter of J. M. Portela & Company, Inc., a1 N. L. It. B. 64, may be inconsistent with our holding in the present case, it is hereby overruled.