Des Moines Packing Co.

206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Respondent cease and desist therefrom , and upon request empower a negotiator to meet with and deal with the Union in matters of collective bargaining. The negotiator designated must be one who has authority to conclude agreement with the Union once understanding has been reached Although the unfair labor practice found relates only to bargaining, the Respondent has in a fundamental sense rejected the command of the statute and has thereby indicated in my opinion the probability of the commission of other and different unfair labor practices in the future. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from violating the Act in any particular Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 Miscellaneous and Woodworkers Union, Local 2565, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act 2. All production and maintenance employees, excluding office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, the foreman, the shipping clerk, 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 3. Miscellaneous and Woodworkers Union, Local 2565, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, was at all times material herein and now is the exclusive representative of all employees of the Respondent in the unit aforesaid for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act 4. By unilaterally changing working conditions and by failing to invest a negotiator with requisite authority , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act 5 By such unilateral conduct and by such failure to invest authority, the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act 6 The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act [ Recommendations omitted from publication ] DES MOINES PACKING COMPANY, Petitioner and LOCAL 7, UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO and DES MOINES PACK INDEPENDENT UNION. Case No. 18-RM-133. July 17, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Raymond C. Sandberg, 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 Peter- son] . Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 106 NLRB No. 41. DES MOINES PACKING COMPANY 207 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The main issue in this case goes to the scope of the bargain- ing unit. Des Moines Pack Independent Union, herein called the Independent, requests a unit limited to the employees of Des Moines Packing Company. Local 7, United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, herein called the CIO, contends that these employees may be represented in collective bargain- ing only in a unit embracing also the employees of Bookey Packing Company. Des Moines Packing Company, which filed the petition because both unions seek to repre sent its employees, and which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bookey Company, takes a neutral position on the unit question. The 2 companies, each engaged in the meat processing business, are separate corporations and own plants 2 or 3 city blocks apart. Members of the Bookey family, which owns both companies, are officers of both corporations and exercise final authority in matters of company policy, including labor relations. In all other respects, administration of the 2 com- panies, supervision of their respective employees, and record keeping are separate. The Bookeyplantis a "straight carcass" wholesale operation, which also processes hides and offal, while the Des Moines plant processes meat and sausage for sale to retail butchers. The CIO has represented the employees of both plants since 1937, and has made successive separate contracts for each plant throughout a 16-year period. In each instance the con- tracts resulted from joint negotiations, in which the CIO officers were assisted by employees from both plants, and the companies were represented by members of the Bookey family who hold offices in both companies and, when needed, by the Des Moines manager who advised on problems peculiar to the Des Moines plant. Joint agreements were always signed on the same day and by the same company representatives and union officials. The contracts have always been identical except for minor differences required by the existence in each plant of a few categories of employees not found at the other plant. The bulk of the employee categories is the same at both plants. The last regular contracts expired'on August 11, 1952. Pending negotiation of new contracts, interim agreements of indefinite duration and terminable on 24-hour notice were executed on August 12, 1952. Because of the Independent's rival claim to represent the employees of the Des Moines plant, the Des Moines company terminated the contract for its plant on April 27, 1953, and filed the instant petition on the following day. On these facts, and on the record as a whole, we find that the pattern of bargaining described above has been multi- employer in nature,' and has been stabilized by joint action 'Atlas Storage Division, P & V Atlas Industrial Center, Incorporated, 100 NLRB 1323 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in behalf of the 2 companies and the CIO. 2 As Des Moines has participated in joint bargaining together with the Bookey company for 15 years, we find that a multiemployer unit including employees of both companies has been established., The record does not show that the Des Moines company has taken the steps required for severance of its employees from the multiemployer unit, nor that it has indicated an intent to abandon its practice of bargaining jointly with its parent corporation . The only reason why it terminated its last interim agreement with the CIO was the doubt as to the CIO's representative status raised by the claim of the Inde- pendent. At the hearing , Des Moines also evidenced no intent to pursue a course of individual action with regard to its labor relations . On the contrary, it declared itself neutral in the conflict ' between the two unions concerning the appro- priateness of a single or multiemployer unit. Under the circumstances, we believe that the above bargaining history is controlling in determining the appropriate unit in this proceeding , and we therefore find that a unit limited to the Des Moines plant's employees is now inappropriate . Accord- ingly, as the unit described in the instant petition is too limited in scope and therefore inappropriate , we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 2 Bethlehem Fairfield Shipyard, Incorporated, 58 NLRB 579. 3 Atlas Storage Division , supra. CIVILIAN CAFETERIA BOARD and COOKS AND PASTRY COOKS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 186, HOTEL AND RESTAU- RANT EMPLOYEES AND BARTENDERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL , Petitioner . Case No. 1 -RC-3212. July 17, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed , a hearing was held before Robert S. Fuchs, 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 National Labor Relations 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: The Petitioner seeks to represent employees of Civilian Cafeteria Board, herein called CCB, in an appropriate col- lective -bargaining unit. CCB contends that the petition should be dismissed, on the ground that CCB is not an employer as defined in Section 2 (2) of the Act , as amended , and that the Board is therefore without jurisdiction in this case. 106 NLRB No. 39.