Armour and Co.

Iii the Matter Of ARMOUR AND COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, LOCAL 54, PETITIONER Case No. 16-R-1698.-Decided September 10, 19416 Messrs. J. A. Gooch, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Paul E. Blanchard, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer. Messrs. S. R. Mauser, IV. L. McMahon, and Floyd Smith, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Petitioner. Mr. Nathan Saks, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Fort Worth, Texas, on June 12 and 13, ,1946, before Louis R. Mercado, Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing lire 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 I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Armour and Company, a Maine corporation having its principal office and place of business at Chicago, Illinois, is engaged in the oper- ation of meat-packing plants, meat distributing houses, and related enterprises throughout the United States. Its meat-packing plant at Fort Worth, Texas, is solely involved in this proceeding. In the operation of its Fort Worth plant, the Employer receives annually raw materials and supplies valued at approximately $20,000,000, of which about 21 percent is shipped from points outside the State of Texas, and sells annually products valued at approximately $42,000,000, of which about 42 percent is shipped to points outside the State. We find that the Employer is engaged in coma erce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 70 N. L. R. B., No. 113. 1255 1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 certain employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropria e 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 of all plant policemen and watchmen 1 at the Employer's Fort Worth plant, including the assistant chief of police, the sanitary inspector, and the part-time watchman, but ex- cluding the chief of police, the fire chief, the assistant fire chief, the retired policeman, matrons, and supervisory employees .2 The Com- pany opposes the inclusion of the plant policemen in any unit, assert- ing that they are supervisory employees and, therefore. not employees within the meaning of the Act. At its Fort Worth plant the Employer employs about 15 plant policemen and watchmen, all of whom are under the supervision of a chief of police. While formerly militarized, the policemen are not now militarized. They are armed and uniformed. They are also deputized to the extent that they are issued special cards or com- missions annually by the chief of police of the city of Fort Worth which authorize them merely to carry guns and to make arrests within the confines of the plant; they are not required to take any oath of office. It does not appear that the watchmen were ever mili- tarized, or that they are either deputized, armed, or uniformed. Both categories of employees perform the duties usually associated with plant-protection employees. The policemen guard the plant gates to prevent unauthorized entries or departures, search employees when necessary to prevent thefts, and enforce plant rules generally. The watchmen, who work on the night shifts, patrol the plant for the purpose of detecting fire hazards and any other irregularities in the plant. Witte ,the exception of the chief of police. however, the policemen and watchmen do not have the authority to discipline or ' Otherwise known as boa-pullers 2 Pui suant to Board certification , the Petitioner currently represents the production and maintenance employees at the Fort worth plant, and has a contract with the Em- ployer covering such employees 3 ARMOUR AND COMPANY 1257 penalize any other employees; nor do they have the authority to hire or discharge employees, or effectively recommend such action 3 Their function is merely to make reports on incidents, irregularities and violations to their superiors who take the necessary action in the mat- ter. It is clear,- therefore, that, except for the chief of police, the policemen and watchmen do not exercise supervisory authority .4 Moreover, the watchmen and policemen regularly relieve one another during certain periods, are on the same seniority list, and are ap- parently on the same pay roll. Accordingly, inasmuch as both the policemen and watchmen perform monitorial functions and other- wise have common interests, we shall include them in a single separate unit, as we have done in previous cases involving similar employees at other plants of the Employer.' We find that all plant policemen and watchmen or box-pullers at the Fort Worth, Texas, plant of the Employer, including the sani- tary inspector,' the assistant chief of police, and the part-time watch- men, but excluding the chief of police, the fire chief, the assistant fire chief, the retired policeman, matrons, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, 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 purposes of collective bargaining with Armour and Company, Fort Worth, Texas, an election 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 direction and supervision of the Regional Di- rector for the Sixteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu- lations-Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the 3 The chief of police exercises supervisory authority , including the authority to hire and discharge , only over the employees under his supervision The decision on the penalty to be imposed for the infraction of plant rules or other irregularities by other employees lies solely with the general superintendent 4 The assistant chief of police is nominally in charge of both the police and fire depart- ments during one shift each day. However, lie has no authority at any time to hire, dis- charge , or discipline any employees , or effectively recommend such action d See Matter of Armour and Company, 66 N I, R B 355 , and cases therein cited Even if the plant policemen possessed supervisory authority , they would nevertheless have the status of employees under the Act (See N L R B v Packard Motor Car Com- pany, 157 F ( 2d) 80 (C C A 6), decided August 12. 1946 , enforcing 64 N L R B 1212.) But in that case we would place them in a separate unit in accordance with our usual practice 6 The sanitary inspector is supervised by the chief of police and substitutes for policemen and watchmen when necessary Q 1258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, in- cluding employees who did not work during said pay-roll period be- cause they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and includ- ing 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 desire to be represented by United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO,'Lo}cal 54, 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.