Swift & Co.

In the Matter of SWIFT & COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED PACKING,- HOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 16-R-1713.-Decided August °L6, 1946 Messrs. Arthur R. Curtis and J. C. Berghoff, of Chicago, Ill., for the- Employer. Messrs. Gobel F. Cravens and Buck Whittaker, of Oklahoma City,. Okla., for the Petitioner. Mr. Martin E. Rendelman, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on_ May 29, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that there were 7 eligible voters, all of whom cast valid ballots in favor of the Petitioner. Thereafter, hearing in the case was held on June 27, 1946, at Okla- homa City, Oklahoma, before Earl Saunders, Trial Examiner.- At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on various grounds. For reasons set forth in Section IV, infra, the said motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations. Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Swift & Company is an Illinois corporation with its principal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois. This proceeding involves. only the Employer's Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, dairy and poultry plant, which is engaged in the processing and manufacturing of dairy 70 N. Lr R. B., No. 56. 713 714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and poultry products. During the year immediately preceding the date of the hearing herein, the Employer purchased and used in its operation of the Oklahoma City plant approximately $1,000,000 worth of dairy and poultry products, approximately 7 percent of which was shipped to the plant from points outside the State of Oklahoma. During the same period the plant produced dairy and poultry prod- ucts valued in excess of $1,200,000, approximately 50, percent of which was shipped and sold to points outside the State of Oklahoma. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and. (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit comprising all foremen employed in the Employer's dairy and poultry plant at Oklahoma City, Okla- homa, excluding the plant manager, plant superintendent, and all other employees. The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate because (1) its foremen are managerial representatives and therefore not employees within the meaning of the Act; (2) a bargaining unit composed of the foremen in question would not ef- fectuate-the purposes of the Act; and (3) the Petitioner presently represents the production and maintenance employees in the depart- ments supervised by these foremen 1 The foremen herein, performing the usual supervisory duties as- sociated with their classification, are in complete charge of their respective departments, which perform production and maintenance work, and are responsible only to the plant manager and the plant superintendent. It is clear from the record and conceded by the I At a consent election conducted under , the auspices of the"Board on May 29 , 1946, the Petitioner received a majority of the votes cast and was designated by the Regional Di- rector as exclusive bargaining agent for the production and maintenance employees (Case No 16-R-1712). SWIFT & COMPANY 715 parties that these foremen are supervisory employees within the meaning of the Board's customary definition. Both the Board 2 and the courts 3 have held, however, that in relation to their employer, supervisors are "employees" within the meaning of the Act. Accord- ingly, we find that the foremen involved in this proceeding are "employees" within the meaning of the Act. In its brief the Employer maintains that the establishment of a unit of its foremen would not effectuate the purposes of the Act. In recent cases' we have considered similar arguments and found them to be without merit. As pointed out therein, the purpose of the Act is to encourage the practice of collective bargaining as a means of settling labor disputes, and this purpose is as applicable to labor controversies involving supervisory employees as to those involving rank and file, employees. Accordingly, we reject the Employer's similar contention herein. The issue raised by the Employer with respect to the propriety of permitting the same or affiliated labor organizations to represent both the supervisory and non-supervisory personnel of a single employer has in recent cases' been considered and determined by the Board in favor of allowing employees an unrestricted choice in their selection of a bargaining representative. For the reasons set forth in these cases, we find that there is no impropriety in representation by the Petitioner of separate units of foremen and non-supervisory employees, of the Employer. We find that all foremen at the Employee's plant in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, excluding the plant manager, plant superintendent and all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. IV. Till,, DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that the Petitioner has received a majority of the votes cast, and we shall, therefore, certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining repre- sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit. 2 Matter of Soss Manufacturing Company, et at., 56 N L R B 348 , Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N L R. B. 4, and 64 N. L. R. B. 1212 ; Matter of L A. Young Spring if Wire Corporation, 66 N. L R B 298 , Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corpora- tion , Vesta-Shannopina Coal Division, 66 N. L. R. B. 386. 8N. L. R. B. V. Armour & Co., 154 F. ( 2d) 570 (C C. A. 10) ; Jones & Laughlin Steer Corporation v. N. L. R. B , 146 F. ( 2d) 833 (C. C A. 5) ; N. L. R. B. v. Skinner it Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F (2d) 667 (C. C A. 8). "Matter of L A. Young Spring it Wire Corporation, supra ; Matter of Sinclair Refining Company, 69 N. L. R B. 970 5 Matter of Jones and Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, supra; Matter of Curtis Bay Towing Company of Pennsylvania, 66 N. L R B . 1152 ; Matter of Sinclair Refining Company, supra 716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES 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, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, IT IS HEREBY' CERTIFIED that United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, has'been designated and selected by a majority of all foremen in the employ of Swift & Company at its Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, plant, excluding the plant manager and plant superin- -tendent 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, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pur- suant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, the said organization is the exclu- 'sive representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, -and other conditions of employment. MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting : For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in Matter of Pack- ard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, and Matter of Jonesi 'dc Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, 66 N. -L. R. B. 386, 1 am compelled to disagree with the opinion herein.