Seattle Packing Co.

SEATTLE PACKING COMPANY 451 SEATTLE PACKING COMPANY and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL NO. 8, AFL, Petitioner SEATTLE PACKING COMPANY and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS AND BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 81, AFL, Petitioner. Cases Nos . 19-RC-1282 and 19 -RC-1308. July 29, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Oliver E. Kearns, 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, 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 National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) andSection2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The predecessor company of the Employer's Serv-U division, whose employees are here petitioned for, was started in 1940 as Serv-U Meat Company by the Employer's president and his partners. It processed meat for sale.to hotels, meat markets, and restaurants. In 1943 the partners acquired the stock and assets of the Seattle Packing Company- -the Employer herein--a going corporation engaged in slaughtering, proc- essing, and selling meat. The 2 companies were operated as separate enterprises until January 1953, when the Packing Company acquired all the assets of Serv-U Meat Company, retaining the operation of the latter as a division of the Pack- ing Company, but consolidating the bank accounts, payroll, and purchasing. It continued to maintain 3 locations of offices: the Packing Company administrative office and production plant office and the Serv-U office. The Employer's production employees are apparently covered by 2 separate collective-bargaining agreements, only 1 of which is in evidence. It is a multiemployer agreement between "Seattle Meat Jobbers Association" and the petitioning Meat Cutters, covering- -according to the testimony although not shown by the terms of the contract--only the Serv-U meat cutters. The Employer testified that this had been "the recognized unit" for a "number of years." There is also testi- mony that the Packing Company salesmen are represented by another local of the Meat Cutters Union, but the contract is not 106 NLRB No. 78. 322615 0 - 54 - 30 452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in evidence. So far as the record discloses all office employees of the Employer as well as Serv-U division sales personnel have never been bargained for. Case No. 19-RC-1282 The petitioning Office Workers Union seeks a unit of office clerical employees at the Serv-U division of the Employer, a unit of 24, but the Employer contends that only a unit of all its office clerical employees, approximately 60 in number, is ap- propriate. There is testimony that since 1943 a central per- sonnel officer has been "over the office section," with au- thority to hire and discharge and with an assistant at each office location. The clerical employees at the 3 locations do the usual office work, are paid weekly "on a comparable wage scale," work the same number of hours, and have the same vacation and medical benefits. The record contains some instances of transfers from the Serv-U division to the Employer' s adminis- trative office. On the basis of this record we find that a unit of all the Employer's office clerical employees is the ap- propriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining for these employees. Although such unit is broader than that requested by the Petitioner, its showing of interest is sufficient in the broader unit and we shall direct an election in that unit. Should the Petitioner not wish to participate in an election in that unit, it may withdraw its petition upon notice to that effect to the Regional Director within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Direction of Elections. Case No. 19-RC-1308 The petitioning Meat Cutters Union requests a unit of all Serv-U division employees, except truckdrivers, office clerical employees, janitors, guards, and supervisors. In effect, it requests a unit of meat cutters and salesmen at Serv-U. At the hearing it stated that in the alternative it would represent a unit of outside, inside, and telephone sales personnel, with the same exclusions plus meat cutters. The Employer contends that neither unit is appropriate, the combined meat cutter and salesmen unit because the meat cutters concerned have been covered by a multiemployer contract, and the salesmen unit because it does not include the packing-plant salesmen, who are also covered by a contract the terms of which do not appear. In support of its request for a combined unit of meat cutters and salesmen the Peititioner introduced testimony that "a majority" of Serv-U salesmen are former meat cutters and are already members of the Petitioner. However, as the meat cutters and salesmen are separately supervised, have different working conditions and wages, and work different hours and, as the Board ordinarily excludes salesmen from units of manual workers, t we find--without considering the impact of previous t See Dunlap Chevrolet Company, 91 NLRB 1115. SEATTLE PACKING COMPANY 453 bargaining for the meat cutters alone--that a combined unit, of these employees is inappropriate. It is thus unnecessary for us to pass upon the Employer's motion to dismiss upon the ground of the previous bargaining. We consider now the Petitioner's alternative unit limited to Serv-U sales personnel. It appears that Serv-U salesmen call on a different kind of trade than the packinghouse salesmen, the latter calling on butchers and the former on restaurants, hotels, and similar buyers and, accordingly, that they stress different cuts of meat. This factor alone, however, would not necessarily indicate the appropriateness of a separate unit limited to salesmen of Serv-U division. But in view of the fact that the remaining salesmen employed by the Employer are already represented under contract by another local of the Petitioner, we find that the residue of its salesmen--those employed in the Serv-U division and here petitioned for--form a unit appropriate for purpose of collective bargaining, and we shall direct an election in such a unit. Accordingly we deny the Employer's motion to dismiss insofar as it was based upon the inappropriateness of the Petitioner's alternative unit request. The question of the inclusion of two telephone order girls at Serv-U in the unit of salesmen remains for consideration, the Employer urging that they are clerical employees, not selling employees, and the Petitioner, apparently, that they are "telephone salesmen." The Office Workers does not seek to represent them. The record indicates that these employees are considered by the Employer to have sales qualifications, that they telephone the accounts on which the salesmen do not call every day--principally restaurants--that they receive instruc- tions from day to day by the sales manager concerning items to "push," and that they attend sales "clinics" with the sales- men. However, they are considered to be "under the office manager ' s" supervision , and their line of promotion was stated to be clerical rather than sales. In addition, it appears that orders are also taken in the billing office, but the record does not show whether this constitutes mere answering of calls rather than solicitation, nor whether specific employees are assigned to the work. Seventy-five to eighty-five percent of the time of the two order girls is spent on telephone selling, with the remainder devoted to checking invoices turned in by salesmen. The written orders which they make out as the result of their calls to customers are the same as the sales invoices checked by them. On the record as a whole we conclude that their work duties and interests are closely allied with those of the salesmen , and we shall therefore include the telephone order girls in the unit of salesmen. We direct that the questions concerning representation which have arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among the employees of the Employer in the following units which we find appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: 454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1. All office clerical employees of the Employer at its Seattle, Washington, plants, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. All outside, inside, and telephone sales personnel of the Employer in its Serv-U division, Seattle, Washington, including telephone order girls, but excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] MASTRO PLASTICS CORP., and FRENCH-AMERICAN REEDS MANUFACTURING CO., INC. and LOCAL 3127, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA. Case No. 2-CA-1799. July 29, 1953 ORDER On March 13, 1953, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1 in the above-entitled proceeding. Thereafter, on May 6, 1953, counsel for the Respondents filed a motion to modify order and for other relief which the Board, on May 25, denied as lacking in merit. On June 2, 1953, counsel for the Respondents filed a further motion to complete record which the Board, on July 2, 1953, considered and disposed of as of that date. Counsel for the Respondents thereafter, on July 20, 1953, filed a motion to vacate order and stay proceedings. Respondents assert therein that Section 3 (d) of the Act grants final authority to the General Counsel in respect to the prosecution of complaints before the Board; that the motion to modify order filed May 6, 1953, was a motion touching essential elements of said prosecution; that the General Counsel was not heard upon said motion and is not shown by the record to oppose or concur with the merits thereof; and that "unless it appear of record that the General Counsel has exercised his said final authority upon a motion touching the essential elements of the prosecution, the Board is without power to proceed," and its Order of May 25, 1953, is void. Respondents further contend that they have been deprived of a fair hearing on said motion of May 6, because persons other than the General Counsel performed the function of prosecuting thereon. Respondents therefore move to stay all proceedings until the General Counsel has furnished Respondents with appropriate notice of position on the issues raised in the May 6 motion to modify. The Board has duly considered the matters raised by Re- spondents' motion to vacate order and stay proceedings. Re- spondents' motion is grounded on the assumption that, under Section 3 (d) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has no authority to deny motions made by Respondents 1103 NLRB 511. 106 NLRB No. 81.