Armour and Co.

98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD truck drivers, and inspectors, but excluding leaders, chief, assistant chiefs, captains, lieutenants, fire marshal, office clericals, guards, 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. The above-named labor organization was, on June 22, 1953, and at all times material thereafter, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 4. By refusing on and after August 26, 1953, to bargain collectively with the above-named labor organization as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate unit found above , 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 attempting to engage in surveillance , threatening to shorten job tenure for being active in self-organization, promising benefits not to engage in activities on be- half of a labor organization , threatening the discharge of union men, and by refusing to bargain collectively with the aforementioned labor organization and thus inter- fering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guar- anteed in Section 7 of the Act , the Respondent has 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 com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Armour and Company and United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC3261. January 18, 1956 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 Gilbert Cohen, 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 petitioning labor organization claims 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. At the hearing the Petitioner amended its petition for a unit of "all salesmen" at the Employer's Atlanta plant to one of "all general line salesmen and service salesmen, excluding specialty salesmen, grocery products salesmen, and all other employees." The Employer contends that the all-inclusive salesmen unit originally petitioned for is appropriate. The Petitioner already represents the Employer's production and maintenance employees and truckdrivers. We find no merit in the Employer's contention that the Petitioner may not repre- sent a unit of salesmen, and accordingly deny its motion to dismiss made on that ground. 115 NLRB No. 19. ARMOUR AND COMPANY 99 The salesmen sought to be excluded from the unit by the Petitioner are 11 grocery products salesmen, each of whom has a specific territory either in Atlanta or the surrounding area. They take orders for soap, canned meats, and other packinghouse products. For lack of space at the Employer's Atlanta headquarters, these employees have a sepa- rate sales office. Their immediate supervisor, whose title is not given, is responsible to the Atlanta sales manager and their employee bene- fits are the same as those of other salesmen. The "specialty" salesmen whom the Petitioner would also exclude apparently consist of 1 salesman who sells lard, shortening, and oil (refinery products) to large users, 1 who sells these products-plus eggs-to bakeries, 1 who sells all of the Employer's products to the Big Apple Stores, 4 who do the same for the Colonial Stores, and 1 whcrsells dairy and poultry products-but normally no grocery prod- ucts-to stores in Atlanta, Macon, and Tifton, Georgia. Those salesmen whom the Petitioner would include are general line salesmen with regular routes, 5 in the city, 8 in the country, and 2 trainees, plus 4 salesmen known as "food service" salesmen, who sell to hotels, restaurants, and institutions, plus 3 relief salesmen, who are presently working as general line city salesmen. The Petitioner at- tempted to show that this group has characteristics which make it appropriate as a separate unit and that a group of all salesmen is not an integrated one at the Employer's Atlanta operation. However, on the record made, it appears that all salesmen may take orders for products not ordinarily sold by them, except certain pharmaceutical products and hides which are ordered out of Chicago, and that sales- men have transferred from grocery products to general line, and from specialty to general line. It also appears that the Atlanta sales man- ager supervises all salesmen working out of Atlanta, with the assist- ant sales manager being the immediate supervisor of some, the grocery products salesmen having their own immediate supervisor, and the salesmen to Colonial Stores having their own immediate supervisor as hereinafter found. It also appears that the method of payment of salesmen forms no basis for distinguishing the group desired by the Petitioner, inasmuch as the relief salesmen and the trainees are paid a straight salary, just as the salesmen to Colonial Stores, while all others are paid a salary and incentive. We find, therefore, that the all-inclusive salesmen unit is the appropriate one.' The Petitioner contends that Solar (referred to in the transcript as Zoller), 1 of the 4 salesmen to Colonial Stores, is a supervisor. The Employer contends that Solar is not, and that he should be included in the unit. Solar contacts the main buyer for Colonial Stores every day, while the other three salesmen contact market managers of in- 1 See North Cal ohna Mutual Life Insurance Company, 109 NLRB 625, 627; compare Seattle Packing Company, 106 NLRB 451, 453. 100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dividual Colonial Stores. Although Solar has no authority to hire or discharge, he does assign routes to the other salesmen, instructs them in sales promotion, and distributes advertising display materials to them and instructs them in its use. The Atlanta sales manager for the Employer testified that he has delegated to Solar the matter of carry- ing out sales promotions. On this record it appears that Solar respon- sibly directs the work of the other three salesmen within the mean- ing of Section 2 (11) of the Act. Accordingly, he is excluded from the unit as a supervisor. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All salesmen of the Employer at its Atlanta, Georgia, plant, exclud- ing all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. -- [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Gulf States Asphalt Company and Oil, Chemical & Atomic Work- ers International Union, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 39- RC-958. January 18,1956 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election entered into between the Employer, the Petitioner, and the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region on September 14, 1955, an election by secret ballot was conducted on October 21, 1955, under the super- vision of the Regional Director among the employees in the ap- propriate unit at the Employer's plant in South Houston, Texas. Upon a completion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 59 eligible voters,. 59 cast ballots, of which 28 were for, and 27 were against, the Peti- tioner. There were four challenged ballots, a number sufficient to af- fect the results of the election. On October 30,1955, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct of election-in which it alleged that: (1) 2 of the 4 challenged ballots herein were cast by Tommy Mendoza and Herman Regas who were not employees of the Employer and therefore were not eligible to vote; and (2) the Board agent who conducted the election committed prejudicial error by challenging the ballots of Neil Balsam and Floyd F. Bramble,. Jr., on the ground that they were ineligible to vote, after having pre- i The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding; we- are amending the identification of the affiliation of the Petitioner. 115 NLRB No. 23.