Libby, McNeill & Libby

LIBBY, McNEILL & LIBBY IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE 267 The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with its operation 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 commerce and the free flow thereof. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I will 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 on December 10, 1959, unlawfully discharged employee Lawrence C. Mattison. It will therefore be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to offer Mattison immediate and full reinstatement to his former or substantially equiva- lent position , without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges . It shall also be recommended that the Respondent make him whole for any loss he may have suffered because of his unlawful discharge, by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he normally would have earned as wages from the date of the discharge to the date of the offer of reinstatement, with backpay to be com- puted on a quarterly basis in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Wool- worth Company, 90 NLRB 289. I am not persuaded by the circumstances of this case that the Respondent is op- posed to the general purposes of the Act. The record shows that the Respondent has maintained a harmonious relation with the collective -bargaining representative of its employees , and has, except for the special circumstances of this case, con- ducted its labor relations in consonance with the letter and spirit of the Act. I therefore do not believe that because of the unfair labor practice found to have been committed by the Respondent in this case the commission by it of similar and of other unfair labor practices may reasonably be anticipated. I shall, therefore, recom- mend the issuance only of a narrow order limited to curing the effects of the conduct found unlawful herein. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Northern Motor Carriers, Inc. and Fort Edward Express Co., Inc., are in this proceeding a single employer and are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 232, Petroleum Drivers, Helpers and Allied Employees, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, and Local 294, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging employee Lawrence C. Mattison the Respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The allegation of the complaint that the Respondent has violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act has not been sustained. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Libby, McNeill & Libby and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-7433. February 15,1961 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 Kenneth L. Keith, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 130 NLRB No. 31. 268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 and the Intervenors, United Packinghouse Work- ers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called UPWA, and International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein called IAM, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act, claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main- tenance employees of the Employer's can manufacturing plant located at 11800 South Ashland Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. UPWA contends that the petition filed on September 21, 1960, is barred by an existing contract between it and the Employer effective September 20, 1959, and expiring September 1, 1961. The Employer and the IAM dispute UPWA's contract-bar contention. The Employer is generally engaged in the processing of foods with established plants and operations in various parts of the United States and Canada. Prior to 1936, the Employer, in furtherance of its food operations, had engaged in can making at the site of its canned meat plant located on Packers Avenue in the Union Stock Yards in Chi- cago. Between 1936 and 1958, the Employer purchased all its cans from other companies. In 1958, the Employer began manufacturing can ends in the Employer's garage located in the Union Stock Yards. Thereafter, the Employer decided to relocate the meat canning opera- tions and to reestablish it can manufacturing operation at the same site. On April 10, 1959, construction of a new plant at 11800 South Ashland Avenue was begun to house both operations and, on January 23, 1960, the Employer commenced operations at this new location. UPWA was certified as bargaining representative of the employees engaged in the above-mentioned canned meat operation in 1944. Dur- ing negotiations leading to the execution of the most recent contract, UPWA sought to have the contract expressly cover all employees at the new location. The Employer rejected this proposal and the result- ing contract refers only to the "Meat Canning Plant" ; department and job classification references therein do not cover employees of the can manufacturing plant. Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that the UPWA's contract, which has been in existence for more than a year, has been applied to the employees in the can manufacturing plant.' Nor has the Employer in any way agreed to include the latter employees within the existing unit. The can manufacturing plant is operated by a plant manager who is responsible to the Employer's vice president in charge of the can manu- 'Indeed, the record shows that union dues have not been deducted on behalf of em- ployees in the can manufacturing plant even though UPWA ' s contract contains union- security and checkoff provisions. LIBBY, McNEILL & LIBBY 269 facturing division ; the meat canning plant is under a plant manager responsible to the vice president in charge of the canned meats divi- sion. Labor relations and the hiring and discharge of employees are handled separately by each plant. A permanent wall separates the two plants. Substantial differences exist in the functions and, of course, the products of the two plants. There is no normal inter- change between the employees of the plants. Each plant has its own employment and administrative officers, maintenance staffs, and pay- roll, and makes its own purchases and sales. Each plant also has its own receiving, shipping, and warehousing facilities. Some of the cans manufactured by the can manufacturing plant are sold to the meat canning plant herein involved but the greater portion of them are shipped to other moat canning plants of the Employer. Upon the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record, we find that the can manufacturing plant is tantamount to a completely new op- eration and is not a mere accretion as claimed by UPWA. We also find that UPWA's contract with the Employer does not extend to the can manufacturing plant, which was not even in operation with a sub- stantial and representative force when the contract was executed. In these circumstances, we conclude that UPWA's contract is no bar to an election among the can manufacturing plant employees 2 Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of the can manufacturing employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. All parties, except UPWA, agree that the can manufacturing plant's production and maintenance employees constitute an appro- priate unit. UPWA maintains that the only appropriate unit is a combined unit of the production and maintenance employees at both the can manufacturing plant and the meat canning plant. In view of the above, particularly because of the nonintegrated character of the operations of the two plants, we find that the single overall unit urged by UPWA is not appropriate, but that the employees of the can manufacturing plant constitute a separate appropriate unit.' We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a separate appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's can manufacturing plant located at 11800 South Ashland Avenue, Chi- cago, Illinois, excluding the employees engaged in the meat canning 9 See Atomic Power Equipment Department of General Electric Company, 118 NLRB 456; Fleming & Sons, Inc. 118 NLRB 1451, Bam>ett Division, Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation, 120 NLRB 1026; General Extrusion Company, Inc , General Bronze Alivtintzte Products Corp , 121 NLRB 1165 8 Rheem Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 52; American-Marietta Company, 121 NLRB 912. 270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD operations, office clericals, guards, professional employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. We shall not place United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO, on the ballot because of the absence of any showing of interest by it among the can manufacturing employees who, as noted above, have been found to constitute a separate appropriate unit. However, we shall permit a place on the ballot to the International Association of Machinists as it has submitted an adequate showing of interest among the can manufacturing plant employees. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBERS RODGERS and FANNING took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. Houck Transport Company and General Drivers, Local No. 74, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Peti- tioner. Case No. 18-RC-4532. February 15, 1961 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 Charles J. Frisch, hearing 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 Fanning and Kimball]. 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 labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.' 3. The Petitioner seeks to represent employees at the Williston,2 North Dakota, terminal of the Employer, acquired by the Employer in April 1960. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their contract, dated October 31, 1959, which by its terms covers all drivers and helpers employed by the Employer without reference to any geographic area, covers Williston employees. The Employer, which is engaged in shipping commodities by truck, maintains other ter- minals at Glendive and Billings, Montana, 107 and 337 miles distant, 1 The Intervenor, Local 190, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, was allowed to intervene on the basis of a contractual interest 2 The petition refers to a unit of employees at the Employer's Minot and Williston terminals, but there is no evidence that the Employer has a terminal in Minot 130 NLRB No. 32.