Swift & Co.

398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4 The aforesaid unfair labor practices having occurred in connection with the operation of Respondents' business as set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and substantially affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act [Recommendations omitted from publication 7 Swift & Company and National Brotherhood of Engineers, Firemen & Power Equipment Operators, Petitioner. Case No 30-RC--1760 February 2, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Allison E Nutt, hearing officer The hearing officer's rulmgs 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning] 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 Petitioner, referred to herein as NBE, and the Intervenor, United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 88, AFL-CIO, are labor organizations claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer a 3 No 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 for the reasons given below. The Petitioner seeks to sever the employees in the engmeroom department of the Employer's packing plant at Denver, Colorado, from a production and maintenance unit represented by the Inter- venor The Employer and Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition, contending inter alia, that NBE, ostensibly organized to represent powerhouse employees, is fronting for an industrial union, National 'After the bearing the Petitioner requested the Board to issue a consolidated decision for this case and for Iowa Packing Company, Dwmzon of gwsft & Company, Case No 18-RC039, which was then pending before the Board The request to consolidate the two cases was, in effect, denied by the issuance of a separate Decision and Order In the Iowa Pae'kang case on December 31, 1959 (125 NLRB 1405), but the Board considered the record made In this proceeding before issuing the decision in Iowa Packing The testimony of Claude H Ericson, a witness in the earlier proceeding, was Incorporated into this record by the agreement of the parties °The Employer and the Intervenor refused to stipulate that NEE was a labor organiza- tion However, we affirm our finding in Iowa Packing Company, supra, that NBE is a tabor organization within the meaning of section 2(5) of the Act 126 NLRB No 5O SWIFT & COMPANY 399 Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers (herein called NBPW), for the purpose of circumventing the "traditional representative" test as set forth in American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. The identical issue was considered in Iowa Packing Company, Di- vision of Swift & Company, 125 NLRB 1408, which involved the same Employer and the same international unions.' We found there that NBE was not an independent, autonomous organization but was merely a creature of the National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, an industrial union which was not a traditional representa- tive of powerhouse employees and, accordingly, dismissed the peti- tion. Our decision was based to a large extent on the testimony of Erixson, the present executive secretary of NBE, who testified that NBE had been established at a meeting which NBPW had called at its national headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa. At this organizational meeting, Erixson testified, a constitution was adopted and Mahon, na- tional president of NBPW, was elected the executive secretary of NBE. Erixson also testified that 9 months after the organizational meeting, NBE held its second meeting with only three persons in at- tendance-himself, Mahon, and Terry, who was president of Local 56, NBPW. Shortly before this meeting Erixson had resigned as secre- tary-treasurer of Local 56, NBPW, and Mahon had resigned as executive secretary of NBE. At this meeting, the three individuals present unanimously elected Erixson to the position just vacated by Mahon. Mahon was a witness at the hearing in this case, but did not testify in the Iowa Packing proceeding, although he was present then. The testimony of Mahon and Erixson relating to the organizational meeting of NBE presents conflicting versions as to what led up to the meeting and what transpired there. Mahon testified that besides serving as national president of NBPW he is also the national secre- tary of National Independent Union Council (herein called NIUC), a federation to promote, organize, and assist independent unions. Mahon testified that he assisted in organizing NBE, not as president of NBPW, but as national secretary of NIUC; that the regional di- rector of NIUC at St. Louis, Missouri, first advised him that a group of 15 to 25 powerhouse employees, employed by a number of unnamed employers, had expressed a desire to form a craft union of engineers. Mahon said that he then forwarded sample constitutions of similar labor organizations to assist these individuals in drafting a consti- tution, and he then attended a meeting in St. Joseph, Missouri, where NBE was organized. His story and Erixson's agree that at this meeting Mahon was elected executive secretary of NBE, 8 The Intervenor in that case was Local 89, United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFIr-CIO. The Intervenors in the two cases have been represented by the same counsel. 400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We consider it strange that the only two individuals ever to hold office in NBE should disagree on the circumstances surrounding the foundation of NBE. Despite Mahon's explanation that NBE was not organized under the auspices of NBPW, we nevertheless consider that his testimony has not rebutted the inference that NBE's formation was first thought of, and was completely implemented, by a handful of NBPW officials. Despite Mahon's assertion that he assisted in the foundation of NBE in his capacity as national secretary of NIUC, we cannot disregard the fact that he was also national president of NBPW, an industrial union which has in the past attempted to repre- sent similar powerhouse units.4 Furthermore, it is undisputed that Erixson was an official of an NBPW local just prior to NBE's second meeting, and that he was elected executive secretary of NBE at a meeting attended solely by three NBPW officials. In these circumstances, we remain of the opinion that NBE is not an autonomous labor organization and that it is not independent of NBPW. In accord with the decision in Iowa Packing Company, we again hold that NBE was organized as an arm of NBPW for the purpose of circumventing the requirement that a labor organization seeking to serve powerhouse employees must be a "traditional repre- sentative" of such employees. We therefore grant the motions of the Employer and the Intervenor to dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] A Mahon, Erixson, and Terry are all employed in the powerhouse department of the Iowa Packing Company. Since 1944, NBPW has filed at least nine petitions in which it sought to represent powerhouse units. Arlington Hotel Company, Inc.' and Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local 878, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 32-RC-1250. February 2, 1960 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 John E. Cienki, 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, which, operates the Arlington Hotel in Hot Springs, Arkansas, contends that the Board should not assert, juris- diction in this matter because its operations do not affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. We find no merit in this contention. ' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the bearing. 126 NLRB No. Si.