Swift & Co.

SWIFT & COMPANY 755 do so only under special circumstances and within very narrow limits. Thus, in pledging the credit of their Employer, the discretion exer- cised by the procurement drivers is restricted to a very small area. I would find, therefore, that they are not so closely allied to manage- ment as to preclude their inclusion in the unit of production and main- tenance employees herein found appropriate. Swift & Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America , Local 615, AFL-CIO and Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men & Helpers of America, Local 758, Joint-Petitioners. Cases Nos. 18-RC-2616 and 18-RC-26.2. Marcia 9, 1956 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon consolidated petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hjalmar Storlie, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in these cases, 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 its main office in Chicago, Illinois, and is engaged in the sale and distribtuion of meat, meat products, dairy, and poultry products. It has various places of business located throughout the United States. The two cases consolidated herein, deal with the dairy and poultry operations located atDetroit Lakes, Minnesota (Case No. 18-RC-2616) and Montevideo, Minnesota (Case No. 18-RC-2622). At each of the plants the Petitioners seek a separate unit of production and mainte- nance employees. The parties are in general agreement as to the composition of the unit, but disagree as to unit placement of pro- curement route drivers and seasonal employees. The procurement drivers, in a prescribed territory, maintain con- tact with and purchase poultry from proprietors of buying stations and farmer-producers, and haul the poultry back to the plant on their trucks. They make preliminary decisions with respect to grading and pricing. They represent the Employer in the purchase, pickup, and issuance of credits to those from whom they buy poultry. In another 115 NLRB No. 113. 756 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD decision involving drivers with similar duties and responsibilities, the Board found that procurement drivers were Imanagerial employees.' We find that the procurement drivers involved in this case are likewise managerial and we exclude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Quite an. upsurge in the Employer's business occurs from around the middle of August to the first of December during the turkey sea- son. At the time of the hearing, September 30, there were approxi- mately 150 employees at Detroit Lakes and between ,145 to. 150 at Montevideo. During regular periods other than the seasonal expan- sion, the Detroit Lakes plant has approximately 40 employees and the Montevideo plant approximately 50 employees. Additional em- ployees needed for increased seasonal work are secured by radio and newspaper advertising and are, in the majority, farmers and house- wives. The turnover during the season is extremely high-at the time of the'' hearing about 6 weeks after the opening of the current season, there had been approximately 50 percent turnover at the Montevideo plant. Not more than from 2 to 5 percent of the season workers return the following season. The seasonal employees are told that the work is temporary, and at the end of the season they are dropped from the payroll without promise of recall. They do not share in the vacation, insurance, or hospitalization plans of the Em- ployer as these plans are available only to employees with. 6 months' continuous service. In view of the irregular and temporary nature of their employment, we exclude seasonal employees from the unit and find them ineligible to vote in the election directed hereafter.2 There remains for consideration the supervisory status of certain classifications, many of which the parties agree to exclude from the unit. The manager of the Detroit Lakes plant testified as to the duties and responsibilities of the following classifications at the Detroit Lakes plant : That the chief engineer is directly responsible for maintenance of all equipment including heating and refrigeration and has effective authority to recommend hiring, firing, and discipline of personnel ; that the shipping foreman, in the absence of the superin- tendent, is the man in charge and that he has effective authority over employees ; that the dressing and eviscerating foreman, the packing foreman, the eggroom foreman, the butter foreman, and the feeding station foreman have authority to effectively recommend hiring, fir- ing, and discipline of employees. The manager of the Montevideo plant testified that the shipping and receiving foreman, the eggroom foreman, the printroom foreman, the creamery foreman, and the chief 1 Swift d Company, 115 NLRB 752. In view of his dissent in the foregoing case, Member Peterson in conformity therewith would include the procurement drivers in the production and maintenance unit. 2 See Producers Rice Mill, Inc., and Producers Dryer, Inc., 106 NLRB 119; cf. Imperial Rice Mills, Inc., 110 NLRB 612; Nephi Processing Plant, Inc., 107 NLRB 647. SWIFT & COMPANY 757 engineer at the Montevideo plant have supervision of employees and have authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing, and discipline of employees. On the basis of this testimony, we find that the chief engineer, the shipping foreman, the dressing and eviscerating fore- man, the packing foreman, the eggroom foreman, the butter foreman, and the feeding station foreman at the Detroit Lakes plant are super-. visory within the meaning of the Act, and that the shipping and re- ceiving foreman, the eggroom foreman, the printroom foreman, the creamery foreman, and the chief engineer at the Montevideo plant are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and exclude them from the unit herein found appropriate. We also exclude from the units the following classifications in accordance with the agreement of the parties : Managers, assistant managers, fieldmen, plant superintend- ents, salesmen, all hatchery personnel, and all office clerical employees. The following employees constitute separate appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees in the Employer's dairy and poultry plant located at Detroit Lakes, Minnesota, excluding seasonal employees, procurement drivers, all office clerical employees, managers, assistant managers, fieldmen, plant superintendents, sales- men, hatchery employees, chief engineer, shipping foreman, dressing and eviscerating foreman, packing foreman, eggroom foreman, butter foreman, feeding station foreman, guards, and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. All production and maintenance employees in the Employer's dairy and poultry plant located at Montevideo, Minnesota, excluding sea- sonal employees, procurement drivers, all office clerical employees, man- agers, assistant managers, fieldmen, plant superintendent, salesmen, hatchery employees, chief engineer, shipping and receiving foreman, eggroom foreman, printroom foreman, creamery foreman, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The petitions in these cases were filed jointly by the Petitioners. The Employer moved to dismiss the petitions asserting that the Board is without jurisdiction to entertain a joint petition and that, in this instance, a joint petition is improper. At the hearing the Employer introduced a copy of the agreement between the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Work- men of North America, which delineates and defines the jurisdiction of each union. The financial secretary and treasurer of the Amalgam- ated Meat Cutters, Local 615, testified, however, that it was the intent of the Petitioners to bargain jointly. The Board has considered the contention of the Employer in several previous cases, and in view of the fact that the Petitioners have stated that they intend to bar- 758 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gain jointly for, the units found appropriate has found joint petitions proper.' , We shall deny the motion to dismiss. The names of the Pe- titioners will appear jointly on the ballot, and, if they are successful in the election hereinafter directed, they will be certified jointly as the bargaining representative of, the employees in the appropriate units. The Employer may then insist that the Petitioners bargain jointly for such employees as separate units. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 3 Swift and Company, 114 NLRB 159; J. J. Moreau S Son, Inc., 107 NLRB 999 ; Son.oco Products Company, 107 NLRB 82. WTOP, Inc. and Radio & Television Broadcast Engineers & Tech- nicians, Local No. 1215, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . (lase No. 5-RC,-175.. March 9, 1956 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On November 30, 1955, the Board issued a Decision and Order,' finding that assistant directors who comprise a majority of the re- quested unit of assistant, directors and floor directors are supervisors, and dismissing the petition. Thereafter, on December 9, 1955, the Petitioner filed with the Board a motion for rehearing en bane. The Employer filed a brief in opposition to the Petitioner's motion, and the Petitioner submitted a memorandum in answer to the Employer's opposition. In its motion the Petitioner requests, first, that the board en bane reconsider its determination that assistant directors are supervisors because of the fundamental character and far-reaching consequences of such a determination of supervisory status. The original decision in this case was made by a quorum of the Board, with 3 of the 4 mem- bers who then composed the Board participating. At that time the question of the supervisory status of assistant directors was fully examined and the matters raised by the Petitioner's first request were thoroughly considered. No basis appears for a reconsideration of the supervisory issue by all five present members of the Board. The request for reconsideration en bane is denied. Similarly, a majority of the members who participated in the original decision (Chairman Leedom and Member Rodgers) find no basis for granting the request for reconsideration of the merits of that decision and hereby deny it. The Petitioner asks, alternatively, for a unit of floor directors, should the Board adhere to its former determination that assistant directors are supervisors. The floor directors, like the assistant di- 1 114 NLRB 1236. 115 NLRB No. 117.