Armour and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 355 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ARMOUR AND COMPANY and LOCAL #100, U. P.
W. A., C. I. O.
In the Matter of ARMOUR AND COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Cases Nos. 13-R-3233 and 13-R-3243.-Decided March 7, 1946
Messrs. Paul E. Blanchard and J. C. Moore, both of Chicago, Ill..
for the Company.
Mr. Sigmund Wlodarczyk, of Chicago, Ill., for Local 100.
Messrs. Sigmund Wlodarczyk, Herbert March, and Burrette King,
all of Chicago, Ill., for the U. P. W. A.
Mr. Nathan Saks, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTIONS OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions duly filed by Local #100 , U. P. W. A., C. I. O.,
herein called Local 100, and United Packinghouse Workers of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., herein called the U. P. W. A ., alleging that questions
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Armour and Company , Chicago, Illinois , herein called
the Company , the National Labor Relations Board consolidated the
cases and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice be-
fore Robert T. Drake, Trial Examiner . The hearing was held at
Chicago , Illinois, on September 17, 1945. The Company, Local 100,
and the U. P. W. A. appeared and participated. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine
witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The
Trial Examiner 's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed . All parties were afforded
opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record , the Board makes the following :
66 N. L . R. B., No. 44.
JSJ
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Armour and Company, an Illinois corporation, is engaged in the
operation of meat-packing plants, meat distributing houses, and
related enterprises scattered throughout the United States. Its
Chicago Auxiliary Plant and its Chicago Packing Plant, both of
which are located in Chicago, Illinois, are solely involved in these
proceedings.
At the Auxiliary Plant, the Company is engaged in the manufac-
ture of soap, glue, ammonia, curled hair, sandpaper, cosmetics, and
other products. During the fiscal year ending September 1945, the
Company manufactured at this plant products valued in excess of
$16,500,000. 'Approximately 50 percent of the raw materials used
in such manufacture was obtained outside the State of Illinois, and
approximately 90 percent of the products manufactured during that
period was shipped to points outside the State.
At its Packing Plant, the Company is engaged in the slaughtering
of livestock and the processing of meat. During the year 1944, the
Company purchased for use at this plant approximately 731,475 tons
of material, about 50 percent of which was obtained outside the State
of Illinois. During the same period, the Company processed ap-
proximately 605,516 tons of products, about 80 percent of which was
shipped to points outside the State.
The Company admits that at both plants here involved it is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Packinghouse Workers of America, and its Local #100,
are labor organizations affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to Local 100 and
to the U. P. W. A. as the exclusive bargaining representatives of cer
tain groups of its employees alleged by each to be appropriate until
they have been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that Local 100 and the U. P. W. A. each repre-
ARMOUR AND COMPANY 357
sents substantial numbers of employees in the units hereinafter
found appropriate.'
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNrrs
Case No. 13-R-3223
Following an election directed by the Board on July 25, 1939,2
the U. P. W. A.'s Local No. 347 was certified on August 22, 1939, as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the production and main-
tenance employees at the Company's Auxiliary Plant, excluding,
among others, plant policemen and watchmen .3 Local 100 now
seeks to include the plant policemen and the watchmen in the pro-
duction and maintenance unit for which Local No. 347 was pre-
viously certified, and for which Local 100 is currently the bargaining
representative,4 or, in the alternative, the establishment of a separate
unit of the plant policemen and watchmen. The Company contends
that the plant policemen are identified with management, and are,
therefore, not employees within the meaning of the Act. The Com-
pany, however, does not oppose either position of Local 100 with
respect to the watchmen.
At its Auxiliary Plant the Company employs 22 plant policemen
and 8 watchmen,5 all of whom are under the supervision of a chief
of police. While formerly militarized, the policemen are not now
militarized; they are, however, deputized, armed, and uniformed.
The watchmen were never militarized, and they are neither depu-
tized, armed, nor uniformed. Both categories of employees perform
the duties usually associated with plant-protection employees. The
policemen guard the plant gates to prevent unauthorized entries or
departures, search employees when necessary to prevent thefts, and,
when requested, submit reports to their superiors on employee viola-
tions of plant rules. The watchmen, who work on the night shifts,
patrol the plant and make reports on unsafe plant conditions, viola-
tions of plant rules by employees, and any other irregularities. With
the exception of the chief, however, the policemen and watchmen do
1 The 'Field Examiner reported that in Case No. 13-R--3233, Local 100 submitted 23
membership cards, and that there are approximately 30 employees in the unit alleged
by it to be appropriate . He also reported that in Case No. 13-R-3234 the U P. W. A.
submitted 29 membership cards, and that there are approximately 35 employees in the
unit alleged by it to be appropriate
2Matter of Armour & Company of Delaware, 13 N L R B 1143
114 N. L. R. B. 862.
4 Local 100 has apparently superseded Local No. 347 as the bargaining representative
for the production and maintenance unit.
6 Otherwise known as box-pullers
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not have the authority to discipline or penalize any other employees;
nor do they have the authority to hire or discharge employees, or
effectively recommend such action. Their function is merely to
report incidents, irregularities, and violations of company rules to
their superiors who take the necessary action in the matter. It is
clear, therefore, that, except for the chief, the police and watchmen
exercise monitorial and not supervisory authority.
We have previously considered arguments similar to those ad-
vanced by the Company concerning the status of plant-protection
employees with like duties at another plant of the Company, and,
as in those cases,6 find them to be without merit. However, we have
also decided in many cases that plant-protection employees perform-
ing monitorial duties should be segregated for collective bargaining
purposes in a unit separate from production and maintenance
employees.? Accordingly, inasmuch as both the plant policemen and
the watchmen perform monitorial functions, we shall establish a
separate unit for these employees.
We find that all plant policemen and watchmen 8 at the Company's
Chicago, Illinois, Auxiliary Plant, excluding the chief of police and
all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
Case No. 13-B-32341
As a result of an election directed by the Board on October 24,
1939,9 the U. P. W. A.'s Local No. 347 was certified on December 12,
1939, as the bargaining representative of all production and mainte-
nance employees at the Company's Packing Plant, excluding, inter
alia, steady-time checkers.10 It is still the bargaining representative
in that unit. The U. P. W. A. now petitions for the inclusion of
the steady-time checkers in the existing unit or, in the alternative,
for a separate unit of the steady-time checkers. The Company takes
the position that the checkers are part of management, and are not
employees within the meaning of the Act.
The Company employs at the Packing Plant about 33 steady-time
checkers who are under the immediate supervision of a platform
foreman, and under the ultimate supervision of the superintendent
• See Matter of Armour and Company , 59 N. L. R. B. 783 ; Matter of Armour and
Company, 63 N. L. It. B. 1200
7 See Matter of Cudahy Packing Company, 65 N. L. It. B. 10, and cases cited therein
• Otherwise known as box-pullers.
• 16 N. L. R. B. 345.
10 18 N. L. R. B. 255.
ARMOUR AND COMPANY 359
of the loading dock. Some of these checkers work on the loading
docks, and others work inside the warehouse. Those who work on
the docks count and record all items that are loaded into freight cars
or trucks for shipment to customers. The actual loading is done by
car storers, who, to the extent necessary, are directed in their loading
operations by the checkers.11 It is the responsibility of the loading
dock checkers to see that a car or truck is properly loaded and that
orders are filled correctly. The checkers who are employed inside
the warehouse check items assembled for shipment, but do not direct
the work of any employees. Thus, the loading dock checkers per-
form chiefly clerical functions and spend some time overseeing the
work of the car storers, and the inside checkers are engaged wholly
in clerical work. While the Company contends that checkers have
authority effectively to recommend discharge of care storers, the
evidence indicates that they do not have such authority ; 12 rather
does it show that their authority is limited to reporting the failure
or refusal of a car Storer to do his work properly. It does appear,
however, that the checkers occupy a status that is different in many
respects from that of the production workers with whom they work.
Their work carries more responsibility and requires greater skill,
for which they receive about 20 percent more pay than car storers.
In addition, they enjoy vacation, pension, and insurance privileges
that are not available to production employees, and, unlike produc-
tion workers, they are paid on a salary basis.
It is clear from the foregoing, and we find, that the steady-time
checkers are not managerial, and that they are employees within the
meaning of the Act who are entitled to representation for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.13 We are also of the opinion that,
because of their partial function of overseeing the work of the car
storers and their other distinguishing attributes, the steady-time
checkers represent a homogeneous group of specialized clerks requir-
ing insulation of their collective bargaining in a unit separate from
that of the production and maintenance employees.14 We shall,
therefore, establish a separate unit for these employees.
Accordingly, we find that all steady-time checkers at the Com-
pany's Chicago, Illinois, Packing Plant, excluding all supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
n It appears , however, that the platform foreman marks up the cars to guide the
car storers in their loading, thereby reducing to a great extent the amount of direction
required by the checkers In this connection , a checker testified that checkers usually
direct the storers only in their loading of canned meats and bacon.
12 In this connection, a checker testified that in his 4 years in that capacity he had
never recommended a discharge or penalty, that he did not know of any checker who
had done so , that he did not think that checkers considered that they had such authority,
and that he had never been instructed that he had such authority
is See Matter of Wilson d Company , 61 N. L. R. B. 105.
14 See Matter of Wilson .6 Company , supra.
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OP REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among
the employees in the appropriate units who were employed during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction
of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth
in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of ' and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Armour and
Company, Chicago, Illinois, separate elections by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations,
among the employees in the units found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the
armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person
at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the elections, to determine (1) whether or not
the employees found to be an appropriate unit in Case No. 13-R-3233
desire to be represented by Local #100, U. P. W. A., C. I. 0., for
the purposes, of collective bargaining, and (2) whether or not the
employees found to be an appropriate unit in Case No. 13-R-3234
desire to be represented by United Packinghouse Workers of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Elections.