St. Louis Independent Packing Co.

In the Matter of ST. Louis INDEPENDENT PACKING COMPANY and ASSOCIATION OF CLERKS, CHECKERS AND SCALES, NATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, CUA In the Matter Of ST. LOUIS INDEPENDENT PACKING COMPANY and NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS, CUA Cases Nos. 14-R-198 and 14-R-1304, respectively.Decided April 19,1946 Mr. John P. Staley, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company. Mr. Don Mahon, of Des Moines, Iowa, Mr. George T. Johns, of Over- land, Mo., and Mes,Srs. Paul D. Franger and John J. Shine, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Association and the Brotherhood. Mr. Oscar Wilson, of St. Louis, Mo., for the C. I. O. Mr. Arnold Ordnuzn, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petitions duly filed by Association of Clerks, Checkers and Scalers, National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, CUA , herein called the Association, and by National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, CUA, herein called the Brotherhood, alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of St. Louis Independent Packing Company,' St. Louis, Missouri, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations F,oard consolidated the cases and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Harry G. Carlson, Trial Examiner. The hear- ing was held at St. Louis, Missouri, on February 13 and 14, 1946. The Company, the Association, the Brotherhood, and United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, herein called the C. I. 0., appeared and partlcipated.2 All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence The Coinpan^ ^ name vva. cur, ted at the hearing 2.1n:algamat"d Meat Cutters & Butcher workmen of Noith .Auieroa, Local 545, AFL, iwav ce!ved with Notice of Hearing but dui not appear (i7 N L H Ili No T(l 543 544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bearing on the issues. A motion by the C. I. O. to dismiss both peti- tions was referred to the Board and is hereby denied.' 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. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY St. Louis Independent Packing Company, a Missouri corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Swift and Company, has its prin- cipal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri, where it is engaged in the business of processing and selling meat products. During the year 1945 it purchased livestock valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to the Company's plant from points outside the State of Missouri. During the same period the Company sold finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to points outside that State. The Company admits that it is engage4l in interstate commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. It. THE ORG tNTZATIONS INVOLVE Association of Clerks, Checkers and Scalers, National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, and National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers are labor organizations affiliated with Confederated Unions of America, admitting to membership employees of the Company. United Packinghouse Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. TIIE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On June 2, 1945, the Association notified the Company in writing that it represented a majority of the Company's plant clerks, checkers and scalers, and asked to be recognized as bargaining agent for this group. On the same day, the Brotherhood informed the Company that it represented a majority of the Company's plant-protection em- ' The C I 0 moved to duuiss, lush petitions on the giound that the requested units are inappiopriate because the emploiees sought should be included within the plant-wide unit of piodnetion and maintenance employees urged by the C I 0 in Case No. 14-R-1367, in sliich the Regional Diree{or for the Fourteenth Region retused to issue a notice of hearing and from which refusal the C I 0 appealed This appeal has since been disposed of, the Regional Director's action having been sustained As to the contention that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate, see Section IV, infra. ST. LOUIS INDEPENDENT PACKING COMPANY 545 ployees, and requested an opportunity to bargain for these employees. The Company refused to comply with either request. A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear- ing, indicates that the Association and the Brotherhood each repre- sents a substantial number of employees in the unit it alleges to be appropriate.4 We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. TILE APPROPRIATE UNITS The Association seeks a unit embracing all the Company's non-super- visory clerical employees located in various buildings throughout the plant, excluding the general office.5 The Brotherhood seeks a unit embracing all the Company's plant-protection employees, excluding supervisory employees. On the other hand, the C. I. O. makes the broad contention that both requested units are inappropriate, and that the employees sought should be included in a plant-wide unit. We find the C. I. O.'s contention to be without merit. The Company recognized the Brotherhood in 1937 as the bargaining representative of the production and maintenance employees, excluding by agreement both the plant clerical and plant-protection employees sought herein. Upon the basis of this unit, consent elections were held in 1942 and 1943, and a Board-directed election was held in 1944,9 all of which were won by the Brotherhood. The existing contract between the Company and the Brotherhood covering the production and maintenance em- ployees continues to exclude specifically the plant clerical and plant- protection groups. At no time have these two groups been included in any collective bargaining agreement with the Company. In the face of this bargaining history, we see no reason to insist upon the inclusion within a production and maintenance unit of the plant clerical and plant-protection employees. Moreover, there is no ques- tion of the propriety of establishing a separate bargaining unit for plant-protection employees, whose interests are manifestly not akin to those of the plant clerical employees.' 'The Field Examiner made the following report on investigation of interest- 1 Case No 14-R-1282-the plant clerical unit The Association submitted 70 cards bearing the names of 53 employees listed on the Company's pav roll for the periods ending October 3 and October 25, 1945 Of the cards submitted by the C I 0 , 12 bore the names of employees listed on the same pal rolls There are approximately 98 employees in the Association's alleged appropriate unit 2 Case No 14-R-1304--the plant-protection unit The Bi otherhood snbnutted 34 cards beat mg the names of 29 employees listed on the above pati rolls Of the cards submitted by the C 1 0 , 3 bore the names of employees listed on the same pay rolls There are approximately 31 employees in the Brotherhood 's alleged appropriate unit 6 The plant covers approximately 23 acres and has 68 separate buildings "Jtalter of St Louis Independent Packing Company, 59 N L R B 542 7111 fact, there has been no suggestion by any of the patties that the plant-protection rmploiees be included in the same bargaining unit with the plant clerical employees 6 921 4 8-46--vol 67 36 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A. The plant-protection unit The plant-protection unit sought by the Brotherhood embraces all uniformed police, watchmen, fir, department employees, bell pullers, sprinkler maintenance employees, and plant matrons, including the assistant fire chief, but excluding all supervisory employees. These enumerated classifications comprise all the plant protection employees of the Company. The C. I. 0., subject to its broad contention which we have rejected, concedes that the composition of the unit is proper, except that it asks for the exclusion of the assistant fire chief. The Company, while agreeing that all plant-protection employees are en- titled to collective bargaining rights, contends that the police, uni- formed, armed, and deputized, should be established as a separate unit inasmuch as their interest and responsibilities differ from those of the other plant-protection employees; it also requests the exclusion of the assistant fire chief. The evidence reveals that plant security, the pro- tection of property, and guarding against theft or destruction are the major concern of the other plant-protection categories requested as well as of the police. All plant-protection employees are generally re- cruited from the ranks of the production workers, and have similar rates of pay. On various occasions, firemen, who are undeputized, will take over the station and duties of policemen. Nor do the police work under separate supervision inasmuch as the police chief, in addi- tion to supervising them, also supervises other categories of plant- protection employees. All plant-protection employees occupy a "policing" status with respect to the rank and file employees. More- over, in the meat packing industry, the Board has included-within the same unit police and other plant-protection employees." Therefore, we find the Company's contention that a separate police unit is re- quired to be without merit. With reference to the assistant fire chief, the evidence reveals that he spends from 25 to 50 percent of his time doing clerical or fire pre- vention work in company with other firemen, and from 50 to 75 percent of his time in supervising the department or assisting the fire chief. He directs the firemen while working with them, and frequently has full charge of the department in the absence of the fire chief. The fire chief consults with him in matters of discharge or discipline, and his recommendations are generally followed. Thus, the assistant fire chief's supervisory authority is clearly established by the record. Consequently, we shall exclude him from the plant-protection unit hereinafter found appropriate. We find that all plant-protection employees of the Company, includ- ing uniformed police, watchmen, fire department employees, bell pull- See utter of Swift and Company , 61 N L R B 1624' Matter of Iowa Packing Com- jon i 59 N L R B 99, Matte' of Armour and Company, 59 N I. R. B 783. ST. LOUIS INDEPENDENT PACKING COMPANY 547 ers, sprinkler maintenance employees, and plant matrons, but exclud- ing the chief of police, the assistant chief of police, the fire chief, the assistant fire chief, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. B. The plant clerical unit No objection to the composition of the plant clerical unit sought by the Association is made by the C. I. 0. But the Company contends that this unit is inappropriate for the following reasons : (1) both unions seeking to represent the clerical employees are composed of production workers and are not competent to represent such em- ployees; ° (2) all classes of employees within the requested unit per- form managerial or supervisory duties, or have access to confidential information regarding company earnings or trade secrets; and (3) there is a complete lack of community of interest or functional coher- ence among the various classes of employees sought. The contention of the Company that both unions seeking to repre- sent the plant clerical employees are composed of production workers and, therefore, not competent to represent these employees, is without merit. The Board has frequently held that clerical employees, though generally excluded from units of production and maintenance em- ployees, may constitute separate appropriate units, and may be repre- sented therein by whatever bargaining agency they choose 10 In considering the second contention of the Company, with refer- ence to the supervisory, managerial, or confidential nature of the duties of the employees sought herein, we shall use as guide our recent holding in Matter of Ford Motor Company (Chicago Branch) 11 In that case, we indicated that managerial employees are "executive employees who are in position to formulate, determine and effectu- ate management policies." And we also stated that "it is our inten- tion to limit the term `confidential' so as to embrace only those employ- ees who assist and act in a confidential capacity to persons who exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations." The Company employs two mechanical office clerks and a storeroom Jerk. These employees are salaried, and work in the mechanical building under the supervision of the chief engineer. They have no employees under them. The duties of the mechanical office clerks ^ There is nothing in the record to indicate that the Association does represent produc- r-+. workc,s Nere,tlielesa, ma'n uch as the C I 0 doen we will consider this contention ,u Katter of Walter Kiddc & Corn poop . Inc C,4 N I, It It 1(150 , hatter of Swift and Company, 61 N L It P. 1624 ' r.(, N I. I; 11 1 11 S 548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD consist of tabulating and computing building and operational expense, including the cost of electricity, coal, water, and labor, and then allo- cating such costs to the various departments in their monthly reports. The storeroom clerk records orders for materials, writes up instruc- tions, ascertains prices of purchase orders, maintains a perpetual inventory of storeroom supplies, and keeps the time of mechanical office employees. It is clear that the mechanical office clerks and store- room clerks are not supervisory employees. Furthermore, in the light of the Ford decision, it is apparent that they are neither managerial nor confidential personnel. There are six time office clerks and two time office comptometer oper- ators.12 The time office clerks copy the time records of the produc- tion employees for the pay roll, compute the weekly hours and pay for the production employees, enter the proper deductions, and tabu- late such other information as may be necessary to make up the pay- roll figures. On pay days they deliver checks to production depart- ment employees. The comptometer operators help "extend" the pay roll and do other related work. Most of their time is spent on the computing machines. It is obvious that these employees are neither supervisory, managerial, nor confidential.13 There are 14 standards department checkers and 7 standards depart- ment comptometer operators.14 The checkers merely gather data regarding the production and working time of the production employ- ees by applying standards set by the time and motion study men. The checkers have no authority to change the standards. They work under the supervision of the standards department head, but have no employees under their supervision. The Company contends that the checkers exercise discretion and judgment in checking the opera- tions of the various production workers, that the amount of incentive pay given the production employees depends on the checkers' reports, and that the checkers are therefore supervisory or managerial. But these employees are not supervisory nor do their duties make them managerial. They do not set the base wage rate and are not con- cerned with labor relations. The checkers obtain their data primarily from department records, but even if, as the Company contends, the data are derived from an individual check of each employee's opera- tion, it still would not make them managerial or confidential employ- ees within the meaning of the Ford decision. The comptometer u The parties stipulated that the head timekeeper , assistant head timekeeper , and part- time timekeepers should be excluded "Cf Matter of Swift and Company, 61 N L . R. B 1624 ( inclusion of an assistant time- keeper in a clerical unit) 14 The parties stipulated that the standards department head, the assistant standards department head, head standards checker , labor analysis clerk , the departmental analysis and suggestions committee , and the standards department stenographer , who also serves as secretary to the department head , should be excluded The time and motion study men were altio excluded by stipulation ST. LOUIS INDEPENDENT PACKING COMPANY 549 operators take the data from the checkers and from these data com- pute the incentive earnings of the production employees, either indi- vidually or by groups. Clearly, they are not supervisory, managerial, nor confidential employees. The Company employs 24 plant clerks and 2 cellar stock clerks. The latter are in fact, specialized plant clerks , their sole distinction from the plant clerks being that their records pertain solely to the finished product, while the plant clerks record the materials and progress of the processing departments . These employees maintain inventories and keep production records in the various departments throughout the plant where they have desk space in the various foremen 's offices. They also keep the production employees ' time records and, in some instances, figure production costs and make weekly departmental profit-and-loss statements . They provide information for the depart- ment concerning his department, and keep the Company informed as to available supplies for delivery ' or sale. The responsibilities for production , however, rest upon the production foremen, and not upon the plant clerks, who in no way exercise supervision over the produc- tion employees . The Company's contention that the plant clerks are supervisory, or that the knowledge of operational costs and trade secrets renders them confidential is without merit, since they are not supervisors under our accepted definition , and they are not confiden- tial or managerial employees within the purview of the Ford decision. Of the dock checkers , billing clerks, and shipping clerks, the Com- pany concedes that only the dock checkers may be included . The bill- ing clerks bill out the products after the loaded truck tickets are given to them by the dock checkers who oversee the loading . The shipping clerks receive, sort, and tabulate the shipping tickets. All work in the same office under the supervision of the dock checker's foreman. Obviously, they are neither supervisory , managerial, nor confidential employees. Also employed by the Company are a hog scaler, beef scaler, small stock scaler, and beef loading scaler and clerk. All the scalers have similar duties, although they work with different products. They Weigh the products, write up supply orders, keep departmental inven- tories, and record departmental production employees' time. The beef loading scaler also functions as a plant clerk. The scalers' work is wholly of a clerical nature and their records relate only to production matters. Quite apparently , they are not supervisory , managerial, nor confidential employees. From the descriptions set forth above, we are persuaded that the working conditions , interests, and problems of the employees discussed are all closely allied. All the employees involved are salaried; 15 the 11 With the exception of three plant clerks , w ho are newly hired F ^,T`'5O DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD duties of all are primarily clerical; and the functions of all are directly related to the Company's business operations. Therefore, we find that the Company's contention that these employees constitute a hetero- geneous group, lacking common interest or functional coherence, is without merit 1e But there are two Credit Union employees, oite full-time and the other part-time, whose interests, we are persuaded, are not aligned with those of the Company's plant clericals. The Credit Union is an organization entirely apart from the Company,, except insofar as it is composed exclusively of employees of the Company. The Credit Union elects its own officers and conducts its own affairs. It is not subject to control by the Company in any manner. It is subject, how- ever, to the control of the State Banking Department and Auditor. Hiring and firing of Credit Union employees, who may or may not be former employees of the Company, is done only by officials of the Credit Union. Both Credit Union employees have office space in the Coin- pany's plant for the convenience of the members and both generally conform to the same hours and working conditions as the Company's employees. Both are carried on the Company's pay roll and receive company pay checks. However, the Company is reimbursed by the Credit Union for their Credit Union work. It is clear that the inter- ests of these employees are not related to those of the Company's plant clericals. Consequently, we shall exclude the Credit Union employees from the plant clerical unit hereinafter found appropriate. We find, therefore, that all the clerical employees of the Company working in the various buildings throughout the Company's plant, other than those working in the general office, including the mechanical office clerks and storeroom clerk, the time office clerks and time office comptometer operators, the standards department checkers and stand- ards department comptometer operators, the full-time plant clerks, the cellar stock clerks, the dock checkers, the billing clerks, the shipping clerks, the hog scaler, the beef scaler, the small stock scaler, and the beef loading scaler and clerk, but excluding the time and motion study men, the part-time timekeepers, the labor analysis clerk, the depart- mental analysis and suggestions committee, the standards department stenographer, the Credit Union employees, the head timekeeper, the assistant head timekeeper, the standards department head, the assistant standards department head, the standards department "head checker, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 'e See Matter of Swift and Company, 56 N. L. R. B . 147, where the same contention was rejected by the Board under similar circumstances. ST. LOUIS INDEPENDENT PACKING COMPANY V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES 551 We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which have arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among employees in the appropriate units who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with St. Louis Inde- pendent Packing Company, St. Louis, Missouri, two separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direc- tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the units found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during the said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- stated prior to the date of the elections : 1. To determine whether the employees in the plant-protection unit described in Section IV, above, desire to be represented by National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, CUA, or by United Packing- house Workers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, or by neither. 2. To determine whether the employees in the plant clerical unit described in Section IV, above, desire to be represented by Association of Clerks, Checkers and Scalers, National Brotherhood of Packing- house Workers, CUA, or by United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Elections.