Swift & Co.

In the Matter Of SWIFT & COMPANY, EMPLOYER and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER Case No. 17-R-1070.'-Decided August 30, 1946 Mr. J. C. Berghoff, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer. Mr. Fred Giitli, of Wichita, Kans., for the Petitioner. Mr. Jerome J. Dick, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at-Garden City, Kansas, on July 9, 1946, before William C. Baisinger, Jr., Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition. For reasons stated in Sec- tions III and IV, infra, this motion is hereby denied. 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, an Illinois corporation with its principal offices in Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the business of purchasing and slaughtering livestock, marketing the products and by-products thereof, and purchasing, processing, and marketing poultry, dairy, and other food products. The Employer's Garden City plant is solely involved in this proceeding. At this plant the Employer is engaged in processing poultry and eggs, manufacturing creamery butter, and producing baby chicks. During the year 1945, the Employer purchased for use at its Garden City plant materials and supplies exceeding $500,000 in value, the majority of which originated in the State of Kansas. During the same period, the Employer produced at this plant 70 N. T. R. B, No. 88 1064 SWIFT & COMPANY 1065 finished materials exceeding $800,000 in value, the majority of which was shipped to points outside the State of Kansas. 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 American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer has declined to recognize the Petitioner as the collec- tive bargaining representative of the supervisory personnel involved in this proceeding 1 on the ground that, as supervisors, they are not employees within the meaning of the Act. The status of supervisory personnel has been considered in a number of cases. Both the Board 2 and the Courts 3 have held that, in relation to their employer, super- visors are "employees" within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the supervisors involved in this proceeding are "employ- ees" within the meaning of the Act. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks to enlarge the scope of the bargaining unit of production and maintenance employees of the Garden City plant which its Local 256 currently represents by adding thereto the plant's feeding station foreman, poultry dressing foreman, poultry grading foreman, print room foreman, receiving and shipping foreman, creamery foreman, hatcheryman, chief engineer, and egg foreman; '- in the event that the Board finds that these employees are supervisors, the Petitioner seeks to have them established in a separate supervisory unit. But the Employer maintains that these workers are managerial 1 The Petitioner, in opposition to the Employer, contends that the individuals involved in this proceeding are not supervisory employees ; however, in Section IV, infra, we find them to be supervisory. 2 Matter of Soss Manufacturing Company, et at., 56 N. L. R. B 348 ; Matter of The Mid- land Steel Products Company, Parish & Bingham Division , 65 N. L R. B. 997. 3N. L. R. B. v. Armour & Co., 154 F. ( 2d) 570 (C. C. A. 10, November 5, 1945 ) ; Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 146 F. (2d) 833 (C. C. A. 5) ; N. L. R. B. V. Skinner & Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F. ( 2d) 667 (C. C. A. 8) ; N. L. R. B. v. Packard Motor Car Company, 157 F. (2d) 80 (C. C A 6, August 12, 1946). * At the date of the hearing the Employer did not employ a print room foreman or a poultry dressing foreman because it was then operating during its slack season. 1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD personnel and that they cannot constitute an appropriate- unit; and that in any case it would not be in consonance with the Act for the Petitioner, whose local is the representative of rank and file employees at the Garden City plant, to represent that plant's supervisors. The employees involved herein are department heads who form the lowest level in the supervisory hierarchy at the Garden City plant. Each department head supervises the employees in his department, is responsible for the quantity and quality of this work, and keeps time records and other data relating to their efficiency. In addition, he effectively recommends the hire, discharge, discipline, and reclassifica- tion of his subordinates. Moreover, the, department head represents management in the first step of the grievance procedure outlined in the collective bargaining agreement covering the rank and file em- ployees. Under the circumstances, we find that these department heads are supervisory employees, and, accordingly, we shall not pro- vide for their inclusion in the existing unit of non-supervisory pro- duction and maintenance employees. The Employer asserts that the individuals involved herein are direct representatives of management and, on this premise, urges that they cannot form an appropriate unit. In Matter of Jones cf Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division,5 however, we dis- cussed the purpose and policy of the Act. We pointed out that the National Labor Relations Act was intended to encourage the practice of collective bargaining as a means of settling labor disputes, that this policy was as applicable to labor disputes involving supervisors as to those pertaining to rank and file employees, and that there could be an appropriate unit of supervisory employees. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Employer's position. The Employer also contends that the Petitioner may not represent the personnel involved herein because its local presently represents the plant's rank and file employees. We have in recent cases, however, considered and rejected similar contentions.6 We held in those cases, as we do here, that the Board had no power to place any limitation on the right of supervisory employees to select for the purposes of col- lective bargaining, representatives of their own choosing. We shall, however, place them in a separate bargaining unit, and not merge them in the existing production and maintenance unit. We find that the feeding station foreman, poultry dressing foreman, poultry grading foreman, print room foreman, receiving and shipping foreman, creamery foreman, hatcheryman, chief engineer, and egg foreman of the Employer's Garden City, Kansas, plant, excluding all 5 66 N. L R B 386. See also Matter of L A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N. L. It. B. 298. 6 See e. g., Matter of The Curtis Bay Towing Company of Pennsylvania, et at., 66 N L. R. B. 1152. SWIFT & COMPANY 1067 other employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with Swift ^C Company, Garden City, Kansas, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Di- rection, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appro- priate 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 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 reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they de- sire to be represented by Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, A. F.,of L., for the purposes of, collective bargaining. MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.