The Evansville Union Stockyards Co.

THE EVANSVILLE UNION STOCKYARDS COMPANY 631 All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Wood- ville, Ohio, plant, excluding office and clerical employees,' laboratory employees," guards, foremen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted.from publication in this volume.] 'Included in this category , in accordance with the agreement of the parties, is the supply house employee , who works under the supervision of the office supervisor. g Laboratory employees are excluded in accordance with the stipulation of the parties. TILE EVANSVILLE UNION STOCKYARDS COMPANY and CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS & HELPERS LOCAL #215, AFFILIATED WITH THE INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC-4:97. July 26,1951 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 Seymour Goldstein, 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-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the operation of stockyards at Evansville, Indiana. It is one of the 68 largest of such enterprises in the United States. The Employer's stockyards provide the physical facilities for the sales of livestock i and service the live- stock from the time they reach the yards to the time the purchasers take delivery, including weighing, feeding, watering, and generally caring for the animals. During the last year, the Employer handled 625,021 hogs, cattle, calves, and sheep. Approximately 50 to 60 percent of this livestock, which is received from independent farmers and other producers, represent shipments from outside the State of Indiana. A substantial portion of this livestock handled by the Employer was shipped outside the State. In the latter connection, the record shows that, during the last year, one order buyer, I. R. Whiting, purchased almost $7,000,000 i The Employer takes no direct part in the sales transactions . Sales are made by two commission companies which act as agents for the producers, and purchases are handled by meat packers or individual order buyers acting on their behalf 95 NLRB No. 70. 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD worth of livestock at the Employer's yards, of which about 70 percent represented direct shipments to packing houses, including Armour & Company, located outside the State. Also, during this period, the Evansville plant of Swift & Company purchased livestock valued at over $20,000,000 at the Employer's yards and this plant annually ships meat products valued at over $20,000,000 to points outside the State. During 1950, the Employer purchased about $49,000 worth of sup- plies, of which about 2 or 3 percent represented purchases from outside the State. During the same period, the Employer's revenue amounted to between 4200,000 and $300,000. Of this revenue about 50 to 60 percent represented receipts from sellers outside the State,' $40,000 was received for certain services rendered to Swift & Company, and about $2,200 was received as rent from I. R. Whiting and the two com- mission companies which rent office space at the Employer's yards. In view of the foregoing, and particularly the substantial value of the livestock handled by the Employer which is destined for out-of- State shipment, we find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case 3 - 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. The Employer contends that its stockyards employees are -agri- cultural laborers" and, therefore, that the Board lacks jurisdiction herein. We find no merit in this contention. While the Employer attempts to secure experienced farm hands as personnel, it is manifest that the Employer's operations are not performed on a farm and are conducted as a distinct commercial enterprise. We find, therefore, that the employees involved in this proceeding are not "agricultural laborers" and are within the coverage of the Act .5 We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of .Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : We find, substantially in accord with the agreement of the parties, that all employees of the Employer at its Evansville, Indiana, stock- 2 The Employer charges the individual producers a fixed fee per head of livestock. 8 See Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Co., Ltd., 91 NLRB 618. Cf. Stafford v. Wallace, 258 U. S. 495 : Gulf Shipside Storage Corporation, 91 NLRB 181. 4 United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis of a showing of interest in the requested unit. e Flemington Auction Market Cooperative Association , Inc., 91 NLRB No. 231. See also Imperial Garden Growers, 91 NLRB 1034 ; and Interpretative Bulletin No. 14, paragraph 6, Wage and Hour Division , United States Department of Labor . Cf. The Rath Packing Company, 87 NLRB 664. WOOD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 633 yards, including laborers, checkers, truck drivers, and night watch- men,6 but excluding weighmasters, office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The determination of representatives : The Employer employs two men as laborers who regularly work only on Saturdays and Sundays. The parties agree, and we find, that these individuals are regular part-time employees and are entitled to -vote in the election directed herein. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] As the record indicates that the employees classified as night watchmen do not spend more than 50 percent of their time performing guard duties, we shall , as agreed by the parties, include them in the unit . Wiley Mfg. Inc., 92 NLRB 40. J. B. WOOD, AN INDIVIDUAL, D/B/A WOOD MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND J. B. WOOD AND CONRAD WOOD, A PARTNERSHIP, D/B/A WOOD MANUFACTURING COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR and LOCAL 396, INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, A. F. L. Case No. 15-CA-209. July 27,1951 Decision and Order On September 13, 1950, Trial Examiner John H. E'adie issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor. practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the In- termediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the Respond- ents had not been engaged in another unfair labor practice alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of that allegation. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re- port and a supporting brief and the General Counsel filed a brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are.hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the 1 The Respondents argue that the Trial Examiner arbitrarily credited the testimony of the union witnesses and discredited that of the witnesses for the Respondents . It Is the Board's established principle that a Trial Examiner's credibility findings are entitled to great weight, because in resolving testimony he is in a position to observe the demeanor of the witnesses . Somerset Classics, Inc., and Modern Mfg. Co., Inc., 90 NLRB 1676; Inter-City Advertising Company of Greensboro, N. C., Inc, 89 NLRB 1103; Northeastern 95 NLRB No. 84.