National By-Products Co.

334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1004, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1710, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By contributing support to the IBEW, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. 4. By discriminating with respect to terms and conditions of employment, Re- spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section: 8(a)(3) of the Act. 5. By the foregoing conduct, Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the .Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] National By-Products Company 1 and International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Local No. 452, Petitioner. Case No. 30-RC-1451.. December 5, 1958 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 F. T. Frisbey, hear- ing 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. Capitol Rendering Company, named as the Employer in the petition and herein called Capitol, as well as Greeley Rendering Com- pany and Sterling Rendering Company, herein respectively called Greeley and Sterling, are all local unincorporated branches of Na- tional By-Products Company, an Iowa corporation, herein called National. The record establishes that Dunn, the general manager of Capitol, is directly responsible to National for the operations of Capitol, Greeley, and Sterling, including the operations involving the employees designated in the petition, and that the payroll and bookkeeping necessary to the personnel administration of these branches is handled through National's central office in Des Moines, Iowa. On these facts, we find that National is the Employer of the employees designated in the petition. Capitol contends that as it is not the Employer and as the petition named, and was served upon, Capitol and not Employer, the petition is defective. We do not agree. General Manager Dunn, a representa- 1 The case caption is amended to reflect the correct name of the Employer as established by evidence adduced at the hearing and set forth hereinafter. 122 NLRB No. 48. NATIONAL BY-PRODUCTS COMPANY 335' tive of National, was present throughout the hearing, the petition clearly designated the employees sought, and there is no claim of surprise or prejudice. In these circumstances, we find that the Em- ployer was not prejudiced by the misnomer and that service of the petition and other formal papers upon Capitol constituted proper- service upon the Employer.2 We further find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this. proceeding. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. Greeley and the Intervenor, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and' Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 634, AFL-CIO, are parties to a contract covering 2 of the 12 employees sought by the Petitioner. The Employer asserts that this contract is a bar. How- ever, as the Intervenor has disclaimed any interest in representing any of the employees involved in this proceeding including the two. aboveinentioned employees, we find that this contract is not a bar.' We therefore find that a question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation 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 operates processing plants in Denver, Montrose,, and Pueblo, Colorado, and stations at Greeley and Sterling. For- merly Greeley and Sterling were also processing plants, but they are now merely pickup stations for the Denver plant. It is the employees who work out of Greeley and Sterling whom the Petitioner seeks to, represent. This unit would consist of the Greeley, Loveland, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Sterling, Colorado, and Sidney, Nebraska, areas, including drivers operating between Greeley and Denver; the, Employer contends that this unit is inappropriate. The Employer, in effect, alleges a lack of integration between these, two stations. Drivers headquartered at Greeley collect materials from the Fort Collins, Loveland, Longmont, and Greeley areas; similar' drivers at Sterling collect from the Sterling and Sidney areas. The foremen at Greeley and Sterling transport the materials from Greeley and Sterling to Denver. Although there is no interchange of drivers between Greeley and Sterling, both stations service the same geographical area and are under the overall supervision of General Manager Dunn at Denver, who determines drivers' routes and pickup, areas. Greeley and Sterling service only the Denver processing plant,, and there is no evidence that the other processing plants are inte- grated with the operations involved herein. No labor organization 2 See Coro, Inc., 105 NLRB 718; Frost Lumber Industries , 101 NLRB 659 ; Harding' College, 99 NLRB 957. 3 See WTOP, Inc., 114 NLRB 1236, 1237. 336 DECISIdNS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD seeks to represent these drivers as part of a larger unit and except as noted above, there is no bargaining history affecting these em- ployees. In view of all circumstances, therefore, we find that the drivers at Greeley and Sterling have a sufficient community of in- terest to warrant their establishment as a separate appropriate unit .4 We find, accordingly, that all metropolitan and territorial drivers headquartered at the Employer's Greeley and Sterling, Colorado, pickup stations and serving the Greeley, Loveland, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Sterling, Colorado, and Sidney, Nebraska, areas, ex- cluding all supervisors 5 within the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. The Employer in effect contends that the employees are not en- titled to an immediate election because the Greeley and Sterling plants may be reconverted to processing, or in the event that they are not, all drivers may be hired on a contract basis. As these possibilities appear wholly speculative, we find no merit in the Employer's con- tention and shall therefore direct an immediate election.e [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] * Chemical Express, 117 NLRB 29. s As the record establishes that the foremen at Greeley and Sterling responsibly direct the work of the other drivers, and have and exercise the authority to hire and discharge, we find , they are supervisors and shall exclude them from the unit . We shall also ex- clude the two contract drivers at Sterling who collect materials from the Fort Morgan, Wray, and Otis areas, in view of the parties' agreement that they are not employees. 6 Standard Automotive Manufacturing Company, 109 NLRB 720. Bemis Bro. Bag Co. and Warehouse Union Local 12, Inter- national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America,' Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC- 3644. December 5, 1958 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 Shirley N. Bingham, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from. prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2 1 Herein , called Local 12. s At the hearing, Textile Workers Union of America , Local 71 , AFL-CIO, herein called Textile Workers, served a subpoena dudes tecum on Local 12 , requiring it, to produce books, and records or other evidence of payments made in the form of strike benefits to the Employer's employees . At the same time counsel for Textile Workers made certain regcarks'about ;both Local .12 and its parent International Union_ Local 12 sled apetition to revoke subpoena duces tecum and moved to strike the remarks of counsel for Textile Workers. The hearing. officer. revoked the subpena , and granted the motion to strike. It appears from the statements made at the hearing by counsel for Textile Wprkery that 122 NLRB No. 52.