New England Processing Unit

NEW ENGLAND PROCESSING UNIT 347 location,' excluding all operating department employees, office clerical employees, construction supervisors, maintenance supervisors, fore- men and assistant foremen, professional employees, supervisors, and guards as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 5 Plant department employees 'who work out of other locations in the Boston , Massa- chusetts, area are included within the unit. Swift and Company d/b/a New England Processing Unit .and United Packinghouse Workers of America , Local 165, AFL- CIO. Cases Nos. 1-CA-3101 and 1-CA-31092. July 28, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On April 6, 1960; Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was, engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist! therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Swift and Com- pany d/b/a New England Processing Unit, Somerville, Massachusetts, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 165, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate units with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of,employment and other terms and conditions of employment. 128 NLRB No. 46. 348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 165, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive repre- sentative of the employees in the appropriate units and embody any understandings reached in signed contracts. (b) Upon request furnish the above-named labor organization with data pertaining to the salaries paid to the employees in the appropri- ate units. (c) Post at its place of business in Somerville, Massachusetts, copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix."' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, be posted by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (d) Notify the Regional Director for the First Region, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. 1 In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Labor Manage- ment Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with United Pack- inghouse Workers of America, Local 165, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all our employees in the appropriate units described below, with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and, if agreements are reached, embody such under- standings in signed contracts. The appropriate units are: (a) All plant clerical employees at our Somerville, Massa- chusetts, plant, including the clerk in the sliced bacon department, the shipping department clerk, the part-time standards checker, the standard checkers, the tstandards clerk, and the clerk in the table-ready-meat department, but excluding the assistant foreman of the curing department, NEW ENGLAND PROCESSING UNIT 349 all other employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All office clerical employees at our Somerville, Massa- chusetts, plant, including the stenographer, the payroll clerk, the office assistant-voucher clerk, the office assistants, the comptometer operators, the order writer, the manager's clerk, and the relief office assistant, exclusive of the secretary to the plant manager, all other employees, guards, profes- sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL, upon request, furnish to United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 165, AFL-CIO, data pertaining to salaries paid to the employees in the above-described appropriate units. SWIFT AND 'COMPANY d/b/a NEW ENGLAND PROCESSING UNIT, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges filed by United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 165, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union , the General Counsel for the National Labor Relations 'Board, by the acting Regional Director for the First Region, issued his consolidated complaint dated January 29, 1960, against Swift and Company d/b/a New England Processing Unit, herein called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) and ( 1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 61 Stat . 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the order consolidating, the complaint, and a notice of hearing were duly served upon the parties. The complaint as amended at the hearing i alleged that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)1(5) and ( 1) of the Act by refusing to comply with the Union 's request to bargain land by refusing to furnish certain information relevant to bargaining in the possession of the Respondent . The Respondent denies that by its refusal to comply with the Union's request that it violated the Act. Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Boston , Massachusetts, on February 17, 1960, before the Trial Examiner duly designated to conduct the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard ,and to introduce evidence was afforded all parties After the hearing the Respondent filed a brief which has been duly considered Upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE PERTINENT COMMERCE FACTS The Respondent is an Illinois corporation which in the course of its various operations maintains a plant in Somerville, Massachusetts, for the processing, pack- ' The case numbers appearing on the complaint at the time of issuance were Cases Nos. 1-CA-4001 and 1-CA-4002 The case numbers appearing in the caption were assigned to the complaint by amendment at the hearing. 350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD aging, and distribution of meat and related products. In the course of the opera- tion of this plant the Respondent annually sells and ships products to points outside the State of Massachusetts valued in excess of $50,000. From these facts T find that the Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that exercise of the Board's jurisdiction over its operations will effectuate the purposes of the Act. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Respondent. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES ,On September 8, 1959, the Board issued its Decision and Direction of Elections in Cases Nos. 1-RC-5624 and 1-RC-5625. In the election held pursuant thereto the Union was designated the representative of the Respondent's employees in sepa- rate units of plant and office clerical employees and was certified as their exclusive bargaining representative on November 6, 1959. The complaint alleges and the answer admits that on November 18, 1959, the Union requested the Respondent to bargain collectively for the employees in the appropriate units and requested the Respondent to furnish it with information concerning the salaries paid to these employees, but that the Respondent refused to bargain or to furnish the information requested. The Respondent nevertheless denies that it thereby violated Section 8(a)'(5) and (1) of the Act. The Respondent's contention that its refusal to bargain or to furnish the requested salary information was justified is based on its denial that the units for which the Union was certified as representative are appropriate for collective bargaining. Specifically, the Respondent's brief excepts to the inclusion in the plant clerical unit of Edgar T. Cogan, the clerk of the sliced bacon department, and the inclusion in the office clerical unit of Helen Rogers, the stenographer Concerning Cogan, the Respondent argues, as it did in the representation proceeding, that he should have been excluded as a supervisor. The Respondent still asserts, as it also did in the representation proceeding, that Rogers should have been excluded as a mana- gerial employee. The Respondent maintains that the Board's inclusion of these two employees in the respective units was arbitary and capricious because of its disregard of the facts developed in the representation proceeding, and that the Board's unit findings are consequently legally invalid The Board's unit findings were not arbitrary or capricious. A reading of the Board's Decision and Direction of Elections reveals that the Respondent's present arguments then also made to the Board were given full consideration and that the Board made its unit determinations only after objective appraisal of the record before it and in accord with cited precedents The Board, having before it the same evidence to which the Respondent now refers in its brief, and considering substantially the same legal questions as those advanced in the instant case, made unit findings which I may not alter nor from which I may depart. In accord with the Board's determinations I find that the units found appropriate in Cases Nos. 1-RC-5624 and 1-RC-5625 are the appropriate units for purposes of the present proceeding. There being no other defense to this proceeding, I find that the Respondent by its admitted refusal to comply with the Union's request to bargain collectively or to furnish salary data pertaining to the employees in the appropriate units (see Shoreline Enterprises of America, Inc., 117 NLRB 1619) violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. IV THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III. above, occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade. traffic and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices violative of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act. I shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondent has refused and still refuses to INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S LOCAL 8 351 bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate units described herein. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent bargain collectively, upon request, with the Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the appropriate units, and, if understandings are reached, embody such understandings in signed agreements. It has also been found that the Respondent has refused and still refuses to furnish information to the Union concerning the salaries paid to the employees in the appropriate units. It will therefore also be recommended that the Respondent, upon request, be ordered to furnish the Union the requested salary information. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, 1 make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Swift and Company d/b/a New England Processing Unit is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 165, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. The following units of the Respondent's employees at its Somerville, Massa- chusetts, plant are appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: (a) All plant clerical employees including the clerk in the sliced bacon depart- ment, the shipping department clerk, the part-time standard checker, the standard checkers, the standards clerk, and the clerk in the table-ready-meat department, but excluding the assistant foreman of the curing department, all other employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All office clerical employees including the stenographer, the payroll clerk, the office assistant-voucher clerk, the office assistants, the comptometer operators, the order writer, the manager's clerk, and the relief office assistant, exclusive of the secretary to the plant manager, all other employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 4. On iSeptember 30, 1959, and at all times thereafter, the Union was and now is the representative of a majority of the Respondent's employees in the -appropriate units described above for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act. 5. By refusing on December 15, 1959, and thereafter to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the above-described appropriate units, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8^(a) (5) and (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.] International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union Local 8; International Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's Union Local 92; and International Longshoremen's and Warehouse- men's Union and General Ore, Inc. Case No. 36-CD-18. July 28, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On March 25, 1960, Trial Examiner Eugene K. Kennedy issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of 128 NLRB No. 43.