Armour and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 209 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of ARMOUR AND COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS or AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 296, CIO
Case No. 19-R-1592.-Decided March 1, 1946
Mr. J. C. Moore, of Chicago , Ill., for the Company.
Messrs. A. J. Shippey and R. R. Engelking, of Spokane , Wash.,
and Mr. Roy Atchison, of Seattle, Wash., for Local 296 of the Pack-
inghouse Workers.
Messrs. David Dolnick and John I. Powderly, of Chicago, Ill.,
and Mr. Joseph Y. Henderson, of Spokane , Wash., for Local 235 of
the Amalgamated.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by United Packinghouse Workers of
America, Local Union No. 296, CIO, herein called Local 296 of the
Packinghouse Workers, alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Armour
and Company, Spokane, Washington, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Erwin A. Peterson, Trial Examiner.
The hearing was held at Spokane, Washington, on October 30, 1945.
The Company, Local 296 of the Packinghouse Workers, and Amal-
gamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
Local 235, A. F. of L., herein called Local 235 of the Amalgamated,
appeared and participated. During the course of the hearing, Local
235 of the Amalgamated moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
that its contract with the Company constitutes a bar to a determina-
tion of representatives at this time. For reasons which appear in
Section III, below, the motion is granted. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs
with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
66 N. L. R. B., No. 16.
209
080572--46-15
2 1 0 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Armour and Company is a corporation engaged in slaughtering
and meat processing. Its principal office and place of business is
at Chicago, Illinois. It operates a plant at Spokane, Washington,
which is the plant principally involved in this proceeding.
During the 12 months preceding September 1, 1945, the Company
received at its Spokane, Washington, plant livestock and raw
materials, approximately 55 percent of which came to the plant from
points outside the State. During the same period, the Company
processed at its Spokane plant materials valued in excess of
$12,000,000, of which approximately 15 percent was consigned to
points outside the State.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
It. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local Union No. 296,
is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North
America, Local 235, is a labor organization affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of
the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company operates approximately 34 meat processing plants
in the United States at which employees are presently presented by
collective bargaining agents. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, herein called the Amalgamated,
through its several local unions, among which is Local 235, the
intervenor herein, represents employees at 12 such plants. United
Packinghouse Workers of America, herein called the Packinghouse
Workers, the parent organization of Local 296, the petitioner herein,
represents employees of the Company at 23 other plants. Prior to
1941, contracts covering employees in the meat packing industry
were executed on a plant basis. In 1941 the Packinghouse Workers
and the Company executed a master contract covering all employees
then represented by the former and its local unions. Other labor
organizations thereafter adopted this practice of negotiating master
ARMOUR AND COMPANY 211
contracts covering all employees of each concern in the industry repre-
sented by their respective local unions.
On August 14, 1943, the Company and the Amalgamated entered
into a master contract covering employees at plants where locals of
the Amalgamated were recognized as bargaining representatives for
the period of 1 year and from year to year thereafter, unless notice
to reopen any section or sections of the same were given by either
party to the contract 30 days prior to the annual terminal date.
A special provision of the contract reserved the right to either
contracting party to request, upon 30 days' notice during the contract
year, a change as to wage rates, and provided for the convention
of joint conferences of representatives on the issue within 1 week
thereafter. Among employees covered by this 1943 master contract
were employees at the Spokane plant immediately concerned in this
proceeding.
On July 7, 1944, a little more than 30 days before the terminal
date of the contract, the Amalgamated gave due written notice to
the Company of its desire to reopen the same. On July 11, 1944,
Local 235 of the Amalgamated, the recognized bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees at the Spokane plant, informed the Com-
pany by letter that it concurred in the action of its parent body in
fixing the "expiration date" of the 1943 contract as of August 1944.
Thereafter the Company and the Amalgamated carried on nego-
tiations looking forward to a new contract, submitting to the War
Labor Board certain issues then in dispute between them.' Pending
the settlement of the issues between them, the Company and the
Amalgamated orally agreed to be bound by the provisions of their
1943 contract. On February 20,1945, the War Labor Board, deciding
certain matters in dispute, directed the parties to negotiate further
with respect to other issues and report back the result of their efforts.
On April 24, 1945, the Company and the Amalgamated executed,
and thereafter submitted to the War Labor Board for approval, a
new contract embodying therein provisions covering the issues here-
tofore in dispute between them, including, inter alia, matters sub-
mitted to the War Labor Board. This agreement concludes with
the following provision :
The Master Agreement between the parties as modified by the
provisions set forth herein shall be continued in effect until
August 11, 1946. In the event of a change in National Wage
Stabilization policy, and only in the event of such change, either
party shall have the right to reopen the Master Agreement, on
i Other petitions were filed with the War Labor Board by the Amalgamated, the Pack-
inghouse Workers , and other labor organizations covering employees of leading operators
in the meat packing industry , and cases involving like issues , some of which had been
pending over a long period of time, were consolidated for decision.
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the subject of general wages only, on 30 days notice.
The Master Agreement will be revised to incorporate the provi-
sions set forth in this agreement, and will thereupon be re-
executed by the parties hereto.
On May 11, 1945, the War Labor Board approved the agreement
of April 24, 1945.
On May 29, 1945, Local 296 of the Packinghouse Workers, the
petitioner herein, made its demand upon the Company for exclusive
recognition. At the time of the hearing upon the petition filed
herein, the Company and the Amalgamated had not reexecuted in
single documentary form all the terms of their agreements covering
employees represented by the Amalgamated and its locals.
The Company and Local 235 of the Amalgamated contend that
the agreement executed on April 24, 1945, constitutes a bar to a
determination of representatives at this time. Local 296 of the
Packinghouse Workers, however, contends that this agreement is
not a bar, urging that a termination of the 1943 agreement was not
necessary to reopen the contract as to wages only; that, therefore,
the master contract of 1943 was not terminated in 1944, but auto-
matically renewed; that, as renewed, it would normally have termi-
nated on August 11, 1945; and that, therefore, the newly executed
agreement of April 24, 1945, constitutes a premature extension of
the master contract of 1943, and, as such, does not bar a determination
of representatives at this time.2
It seems clear that in July 1944 the Amalgamated and Local 235
might have opened their master contract of 1943 as to wages only
and thus preserved, through the exercise of the automatic renewal
clause therein, the continuance of their bargaining relations in the
form of a written contract for an additional term. Whether all
the changes in the contractual relations desired by the Amalgamated
and its local unions could have been negotiated by opening the
provision of their contract covering wage rates only is questionable.3
But whether the termination of the master contract of 1943 was or
was not ill advised, and whatever may have prompted their actions,
it is clear that the intention of the contracting unions was to prevent
an automatic renewal of the contract term by timely notice before
the close of the contract year. Their notices to the Company cannot
otherwise be interpreted. Pending the settlement of certain matters
submitted to the War Labor Board in compliance with lawful
f Matter of Swift and Company , 64 N. L . R. B 880.
• The new terms of the April 24, 1945, contract relate to payment for time spent In
changing clothes, the furnishing of work clothes, tools, and equipment , the payment of
time in preparation of tools for use, provisions for adjustment of wage inequalities within
plants and between plants , lunch periods , and matters of rates of pay for the employees
concerned.
ARMOUR AND COMPANY 213
authority, they made an oral agreement to remain bound by the
terms of the master contract of 1943. Had the petitioner herein
presented its claim to represent employees at the Spokane plant
prior to April 24, 1945, there would have been no written contract
between the Company and the Amalgamated to preclude an im-
mediate determination of representatives 4 On April 24, 1945, how-
ever, the Company and the Amalgamated executed a new written
agreement resolving the issues heretofore the subject of their im-
mediate negotiations and incorporated therein the terms of the 1943
master agreement not inconsistent therewith, and fixed for their new
contract a term of approximately 16 months. Since the contracting
parties failed to carry out their expressed intention to make a formal
document embodying therein the new agreed provisions and the
terms of the 1943 contract carried over into a new term, the real
question before us is whether the agreement of April 24, 1945, consti-
tutes a sufficient and comprehensive written memorandum of the
understanding between the parties to stabilize bargaining relations
for the employees concerned and hence constitute a bar to a determina-
tion of representatives for the term of the contract.5 We believe
that, it does. The agreement of April 24, 1945, incorporating the
provisions of the 1943 contract was not inconsistent therewith, con-
stitutes an explicit written record of the entire immediate under-
standing between the parties covering provisions as to wages and
other conditions of employment customarily found in contracts in
this industry for a reasonable term. Therefore, the reexecution of
the documents, intended but not effected by the parties, does not bear
upon their accord committed to a writing or impair the effectiveness
of their binding agreement for the term set. Although contracts
for periods of 1 year are customary in the meat packing industry,
in view of the delays incident to the submission of disputed issues
to the War Labor Board, we find that the term of the new agreement
is not unreasonable." Accordingly, we find that the contract of April
24, 1945, constitutes a bar to a determination of representatives at
this time. We shall dismiss the petition filed by Local 296 of the
Packinghouse Workers, without prejudice, however, to the filing of
a new petition near the close of the present contract term.?
* Matter of J. Laskin f Sons Corp ., 49 N. L. R. B 1183.
G Matter of Eicor, Inc ., 46 N. L. R. B. 1035; Matter of The Trailer Company of America,
51 N. L. R. B. 1106.
9 The Packinghouse workers likewise executed an agreement with the Company expiring
in August 1946. See also Matter of Swift and Company, supra.
7 We find it unnecessary to consider at this time the contentions of the parties with
respect to the unit appropriate for the Company' s employees . There is nothing in the
record upon which to base a finding that employees covered by the contract do not
constitute an appropriate unit for bargaining purposes
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For the reasons above stated, we find that no question has arisen
concerning the representation of employees of the Company at the
Spokane plant, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for the investi-
gation and certification of representatives of employees of Armour
and Company at its Spokane, Washington, plant, filed by United
Packinghouse Workers of America, Local Union No. 296, CIO, be,
and it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.