Swift and Co.

SWIFT AND COMPANY 159 Swift and Company and Amalgamated Meatcutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 368, AFL, and Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America, Local No. 483, AFL, Joint Peti- tioners. Case No. •19-RC-1666. September 2,0, 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 Orville W. Turnbaugh, 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 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 employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer is an Illinois corporation with the main office in Chicago, Illinois, engaged in the sale and distribution of meat and meat products with places of business located in many of the States. This proceeding involves the Employer's sales unit located at Boise, Idaho, which is engaged solely in, distribution of meat and meat prod- ucts in and about that geographical area. A manager in charge of the sales unit testified that a superintendent was responsible to him for the operational part of the business, the sale and shipment of carcass meat in the same form as purchased from slaughtering and processing plants, and that the head of the cut meat department was in charge of that part of the operation involving the sale and fabri- cating (i. e. boning and cutting) of the carcass meat into small cuts for retail trade and consumer usage. The Petitioners and the Employer agree substantially on the ap- propriate unit. They differ as to the inclusion of the two outside salesmen and as to whether or not the head of the cut meat department is a supervisor. At this Boise, Idaho, sales unit the Employer regu- larly employs, besides the manager, the superintendent, the cut meat department head, 2 outside salesmen, 1 truckdriver, and a "part-time student. All persons except the truckdriver and the part-time em- ployee are salaried and receive vacation benefits different from the hourly paid employees. The two outside salesmen are directly responsible to the manager, and perform their duties of contacting customers and taking orders for 114 NLRB No. 38. 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD future delivery in a company-owned passenger car. Unlike hourly. paid employees who work only 40 hours, they work 48 hours per week. Only when an emergency arises do they make any deliveries, and then it is usually a very small order. In view of the fact that their interest and general working conditions appear to be different from those•of other employees, we shall exclude them from the unit.' The cut meat department head is responsible for the preparation and sale of fabricated cuts of meat, and for the establishment of the price that it sells for in order to operate the department at a profit.' He spends about 50 percent of his time boning and cutting meat, about 25 percent of his time on outside sales works, and the remaining 25 percent making telephone sales and performing general office duties. The manager testified that the department head had specifically been given the authority to hire and fire, and that although there had been no occasion to exercise the latter authority, he had hired an employee, and that he decides when he needs extra help and calls in the nonregu- jar, part-time employees who work under his direction. Two weeks prior to the hearing the full-time meat cutter in this department left the Employer and works now only on nonregular part-time basis, re- porting only when notified to do so by the department head. When a regular employee, the meat cutter received approximately 25 percent less than the department head. At the present time, the department head has no full-time employees in the department. However, a part time, college student spends a small percentage of his time under the direction of the department head. We find that the cut meat'depart- ment head possesses the authority to hire and fire and responsibility to direct employees working in the cut meat department. 'Accordingly, we shall exclude him from the unit as a supervisor. We,find that all employees in the Employer's Boise, Idaho, sales unit excluding the manager, superintendent, cut meat department head, the salesmen, clerical employees, 'guards, and supervisors as defined in ,the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The petition in this case was filed jointly by the Petitioners. The Employer moved for dismissal of the petition contending that in this instance a joint petition is improper as the Petitioners have no inten= tion to represent or bargain jointly for a single bargaining unit. To substantiate this 'assertion, the Employer offered an exhibit which the hearing officer rejected, which purports to be a copy of an agreement between the two Petitioners clearly defining the jurisdiction' of each union to the exclusion of the other. Although at the hearing, each union claimed the, employee within its jurisdiction established, by.this ",1Naagana Beer ' Distributor8 _ dsaoeiataon, 108 NLRB 1571; Progres8ive Matrix Company, 93 NLRB 383. FISHER PRODUCTS COMPANY 161 agreement, we find that it is not'conclusive that the Petitioners will not bargain on a joint basis for the unit herein found appropriate. We see no reason"to depart from our past practice in such cases and shall deny the motion to dismiss.' The names of the Petitioners will appear jointly on the ballot, and, if they are successful in the election herein- after directed, they will be certified jointly as the bargaining repre= sentative of the employees in the entire appropriate unit. The Em- ployer may then insist that the Petitioners bargain jointly for such employees as a single unit. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2J. J. Moreau & Son , Inc., 107 NLRB 999; Sonoco Products Company, 107 NLRB 82. Fisher Products Company and Local 404, Upholsterers' Inter- national Union of North America, AFL. Case No. 4-RC-2591. September 22,1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted on April 5, 1955, under the direction and supervision of the,Regional Director for the Fourth Region, among the employees, in the appropriate unit. At the conclusion of the election; the parties were-furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 34 eligible voters, 7 voted for and 15 against the, Union and 12 votes were challenged. Thereafter, on April 13,,1955, the Union filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. On May 26, 1955, the Regional Director issued and duly served upon the parties his report and rec- ommendation on challenges and objections, in which he recommended that the challenges be sustained and that the objections be overruled on,the ground that they had not been timely served upon the Employer. Thereafter the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Di- rector's report and a supporting brief. As stated, the election was held on April 5, 1955. The objections were not filed in the Regional Director's office until April 13, 1955, and were not actually 'received by the Employer until April 14. Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations requires that objections be.-filed with the Regional Director within 5 days of the receipt of the tally of ballots and that copies of the objections immediately be '1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and'Orders. 114 NLRB No. 37. I