Guggenheim Packing Co.

GUGGENHEIM PACKING COMPANY 777 foremen report directly to the yard superintendent.- Although inside machinists generally work to a closer tolerance than that ordi- narily required in the repair work performed on board a vessel,12 the pay rates in both departments are the same. But as seniority is de- partnmental, the inside and outside machinists have separate seniority lists. We find that the inside and outside machinists and their helpers at the Employer's Brooklyn and Hoboken yards constitute a homo- geneous, readily identifiable, craft group 13 with sufficient interests in common to entitle them to separate representation if they so desire.14 We shall direct an election among these employees, and if a majority of them vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be represented in a separate bargaining unit. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] "The yard superintendent reports to a production superintendent who in turn reports to the general superintendent. 12 Bench hands or helpers in the machine shop assemble parts finished in the shop and carry them to the vessels under repair, where they are installed by the outside machinists. 13 Gibbs Corporation, supra; Watei man Steamship Corp , supra. 14 Todd Shipyards Corporation, supra. GUGGENHEIM PACKING COMPANY and INDEPENDENT BUTCHERS' & PACKERS' UNION, PETITIONER. Case No. 17-RC-956. May 01, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William J. Scott, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem- ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 94 NLRB No. 93. 778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The parties agree, and we find, that all the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Wichita, Kansas, plant, excluding all office and clerical employees, guards, professional em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. Determination of representatives : On December 12, 1950, 42 employees in the appropriate unit at the Employer's plant left work because of a dispute between the Em- ployer and United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 379, CIO, hereinafter called the Intervenor.' The Employer hired 19 replacements. On February 28, 1951, an agreement was concluded between the Employer and the Intervenor whereby the 42 employees were to be recalled to work, in order of seniority, displacing the 19 new employees, as soon as production schedules permitted. Pur- suant to this agreement, the 19 replacements were informed by the Employer, according to the Employer's testimony, that they were being "laid off temporarily and only until business permits your recall to work." Because of business conditions, only about 4 of the 42 employees who were involved in the dispute, are at present employed at the Employer's plant. None of the parties contends that the remaining 38 employees in this group are ineligible to cast their bal- lots. The parties do, however, disagree as to whether the 19 replace- ments are eligible to vote. The Petitioner urges that they should be permitted to vote on the ground that they were temporarily laid off. The Intervenor takes the position that they are ineligible because they have no reasonable expectancy of reemployment in the near future. The Employer contends that the replacements have been tem- porarily laid off due to a retrenchment in business caused by the un- certainties in Government price regulations affecting the Employer's product; and that, as soon as the uncertainties have been removed and the Employer resumes full production, these employees will probably be recalled. We find the evidence insufficient to decide the employment status of these 19 individuals. We shall, therefore, permit them to vote, subject to challenge. The challenged ballots shall not be counted unless they affect the results of the election, in which event the ques- tion as to which of these ballots shall be opened and counted will await further investigation concerning the employment status of the affected individuals.2 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 1 A collective bargaining agreement currently in force between the Employer and the Intervenor is not urged as a bar to these proceedings. 2 Cf. Pagoda.%zzzttzng Mills, Inc., 87 NLRB 621 ; Cocoizne Products, Inc., 79 NLRB 1426.