Swift & Co.

SWIFT & COMPANY 33 ical employees, watchmen, guards, machine tenders, and other super- visors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] SWIFT & COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETr o nut. Case No. 17-RC-1374. October 01, 1952 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 Eugene Hoffman, 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, Styles, and Peterson]. 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 em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation 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 : The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in Kansas City, Missouri, in- cluding plant cafeteria employees, hourly paid scalers and order fillers in the city sales department, hourly paid dock checkers, hourly paid scalers, hourly paid storeroom employees, and all dressing room attendants, excluding truck drivers and dispatchers, weekly paid dock checkers, weekly paid scalers, weekly paid storeroom employees, all office and clerical employees, plant clerks, employees in the em- "Due to extenuating circumstances , the hearing officer granted the motion of Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Department Store, Package Grocery, Paper House, Liquor and Meat Drivers, Helpers and Warehousemen, Local No. 955 , AFL, to intervene in this proceeding contingent upon the production of a current showing of interest within 2 days of the close of the hearing. As this organization has failed to produce the requisite showing within the allotted time, the motion to intervene is denied. Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368. ' In its brief, the Intervenor, National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, Local No. 12, CUA, questioned the compliance status of the Petitioner. The fact of compliance by a labor organization which is required to comply 3s a matter for administrative de- termination and is not litigable by the parties. Moreover, the Board is administratively satisfied that the Petitioner is in compliance . Swift & Company, 94 NLRB 917. 101 NLRB No. 2. 34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees' store, research laboratory employees, brick masons, draftsmen, standards department employees, plant protection employees (police- men, bell pullers, firemen, and watchmen), and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Intervenor and the Employer contend that the existing production and maintenance unit for which the Inter- venor has bargained since 1943, which includes truck drivers and dis- patchers and weekly paid dock checkers and scalers, but excludes dressing room attendants, is appropriate. Truck drivers: The Employer employs approximately 50 truck drivers in its auto department, in addition to 3 dispatchers who are occasionally required to do driving work. These employees, who deliver the Employer's meat and meat products into Kansas City and the surrounding areas, are on a plant-wide seniority list and are entitled to replace production employees in case of reductions in force; they receive the same fringe benefits as the employees in the production unit; and the truck drivers and the production em- ployees are interchanged. Moreover, no labor organization seeks to represent these individuals in a separate unit.' In view of these cir- cumstances, and the facts that the truck drivers and dispatchers have been bargained, for as part of the plant-wide unit over a 10-year period, and are included in production units at other plants of the Employer,4 we shall include them in the unit e Dressing room attendants: The Employer would exclude 10 dress- ing room attendants from the unit on the ground that they are watch- men. The Petitioner would include these individuals. The Inter- venor takes no position with respect to their unit placement. The Employer has eight male and two female dressing room attend- ants. The two female employees, who are called matrons, and six of the male employees work during the day and are assigned to par- ticular dressing rooms. The remaining two attendants work on the night shift. In addition to these employees, the Employer employs guards who are stationed at the entrances to the plant, and watchmen who make periodic tours of the plant, including the dressing rooms. All of these individuals are supervised by the chief of plant police. According to the testimony of the plant superintendent, the day shift attendants and matrons spend from 25 to 35 percent of their time collecting the soiled work clothes of the production employees, im- pressing laundry marks upon them, delivering them to a central laundry pickup station, and returning the laundered clothing to the dressing rooms. In addition, they supervise the dressing room lockers ' Local No. 955 of the Teamsters, whose intervention herein has been denied , sought to sever the truck drivers and dispatchers from the plant-wide unit. 4 Under the most recent master agreement between the Intervenor and the Employer, seven out of nine production and maintenance units covered include truck drivers. 5 Wilson & Co., Inc., 80 NLRB 1466. SWIFT & COMPANY 35 and provide supplies. The balance of their time is spent performing general cleaning duties in the dressing rooms, and in the enforcement of plant rules and regulations. However, the record is devoid of any evidence as to the portion of time which is allocated to each of these latter functions. With respect to the two night shift attendants, all their time is devoted to cleaning work. In view of the foregoing, it seems clear that, despite their super- vision by the chief of plant police, the two night attendants perform no monitorial duties normally performed by watchmen. Moreover, we are not satisfied from the record as a whole that the remaining dressing room attendants and matrons spend more than 50 percent of their time in work that is covered by the statutory description of "guards" in Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the dressing room attendants are not watchmen within the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore include them in the unit.' Docle checkers and scalers: There are approximately 20 employees in each of these classifications. The checkers, whose work is confined to the 3 loading stations at the plant, record the numbers and weights of products on package labels, and mark each package to indicate they have been checked. The scalers weigh the meat products which have been received or are ready to be shipped, and keep records of such weights. The Employer has, among both classifications, some em- ployees who are paid on an hourly basis and some who are paid weekly. The Petitioner contends that only those who are hourly paid should be included in the plant-wide unit. The Intervenor and the Em- ployer urge that, in view of the bargaining history, both the hourly and weekly paid employees in these classifications should be included. So far as appears, the weekly paid checkers and scalers perform the same functions and duties as those who are hourly paid. As the difference in the manner of payment appears to arise from historical or administrative reasons, rather than from a difference in functions, we perceive no reason for distinguishing for representation purposes between the hourly paid checkers and scalers and those who are paid by the week.7 Accordingly, we shall include the weekly paid checkers and scalers in the unit.,, We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in Kansas City, Missouri, including truck drivers " See Wilson t Co., Inc., 81 NLRB 504, 506. 'The Petitioner apparently argues that because only the hourly paid employees in the mechanical storeroom have been bargained for and are now sought to be included by the Intervenor and the Employer, the hourly paid checkers and scalers should be similarly treated. We find, however, that the functions and duties of the hourly and weekly paid storeroom employees differ in that the former receive and dispense clothing and other supplies, while the work of the latter is confined to keeping records and performing other clerical duties. s Wilson & Co , Inc., 80 NLRB 1466; Agar Packing & Provision Corporation, 62 NLRB 358. 242305-53-4 36 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and dispatchers, plant cafeteria employees, hourly paid scalers and order fillers in the city sales department, hourly and weekly paid dock checkers, hourly and weekly paid scalers, hourly paid storeroom em- ployees, and all dressing room attendants, excluding weekly paid storeroom employees, all office and clerical employees, plant clerks, employees in the employees' store, research laboratory employees, brick masons, draftsmen, standards department employees, plant pro- tection employees (policemen, bell pullers, firemen, and watchmen), and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] KNOx GLASS BOTTLE COMPANY and LODGE No. 1597, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC- 755. October 21, 1952 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 J. Mart Mitchell, 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 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner, and Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the United States and Canada, A. F. of L., Local No. 230, herein called the Intervenor, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion 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 : 1 We reject as without merit the Employer's contention that the Petitioner's failure to submit a showing of interest after the filing of the instant petition constituted a fatal de- fect. An adequate and sufficiently current showing of interest was already on file with the Board in connection with a previous petition of the Petitioner (which was withdrawn) filed about 1% months before the present petition . Moreover, the question of a showing of representative interest is entirely an administrative matter not litigable by the parties at the hearing. 100 NLRB No. 14.