Frank Smith & Sons

FRANK SMITH & SONS 241 FRANK H. SMITH , CLAUDE L. SMITH, FRANK B. SMITH, HOWARD P. SMITH, MORRIS M. SMITH, AND BILLY J. SMITH , D/B/A FRANK SMITH & SONS 1 and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 16-RC-1506. January 18,1955 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 William H. Renkel, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are- free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer operates a poultry processing plant in Waco, Texas. It purchases live poultry which it slaughters, dresses, and sells to wholesale and retail food distributors. During the last year the Employer's total purchases from out-of-State amounted to less than $10,000. Total sales amounted to approximately $3,500,000. Of this amount, less than $10,000 represented sales shipped directly out-of- State. - Approximately , $345,000 represented sales of poultry to, Crown Poultry Company, an operating division of Safeway Stores, Incorporated, the poultry being delivered to Safeway's El Paso, Texas, warehouse, where it was commingled with poultry from other sources and lost its identity. The Safeway warehouse shipped all the poultry, valued at more than $900,000 during the past year, to 16 Safeway stores in Texas and 25 Safeway stores in New Mexico. The record indicates that the poultry purchases of each of the New Mexico stores are approximately the same as those of the Texas stores. In view of the fact that the Employer sells in excess of $100,000 worth of poultry to Safeway which, in turn, ships in excess of $50,000 worth of the poultry with which it is commingled to stores outside the State of Texas, we find that the Employer's operations meet the indirect outflow standard announced in Jonesboro Grain Drying Co-- operative,' and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.' 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. i The Employer 's name has been amended to conform with the evidence adduced at the hearing. 2 110 NLRB 481. 3 Contrary to the Employer, there is no basic inconsistency between the assertion of jurisdiction here and the Board's failure to assert jurisdiction in the earlier proceeding involving this Employer, Frank Smith & Sons, 100 NLRB 1382 Now unlike then, the. Employer by its sales to the El Paso warehouse of Safeway meets the indirect outflow- jurisdictional standards. 111 NLRB No. 39. 242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees and truckdrivers at its Waco, Texas, poultry dressing plant, excluding managerial, office clerical, and plant clerical employees, salesmen, driver-salesmen, field men, operating students, supervisors, and guards as defined in the Act.4 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] * The pasties agreed that this unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. ROCKWELL VALVES, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN- ISTS, AFL, PETITIoNER. Case No. 16-RC-1550. January 19, 1955 Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a "Stipulation for Certification upon a Consent Elec- tion" and in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 5, 1954, in the above-entitled proceeding under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region. Thereafter the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of 109 valid ballots counted 55 were cast for International Association of Machin- ists, AFL, hereinafter called the Petitioner; 10 were cast for United Steelworkers of America, CIO, hereinafter called the Intervenor; and 44 were cast against both participating labor organizations. There were no challenged ballots and one void ballot. On November 10, 1954, the Employer timely filed its objections to certification. On November 22, 1954, after an investigation of these objections, the Regional Director issued and duly served on the par- ties his report on objections in which he recommended that the Board overrule the objections. Thereafter, on November 30, 1954, the Em- ployer filed its exceptions to report on objections and a supporting brief. The Board, having considered the objections to the certification, the report on objections, the exceptions thereto and the brief, and the en- tire record in the case, makes the following findings : 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 representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 111 NLRB No. 40.