Armour and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 1649 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

ARMOUR AND COMPANY
Armour and Company and Independent Sioux
Quality Union of Sioux City, Iowa, Petitioner.
Case 18-RC-7374
August 20, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer LeRoy L.
Bradwish . Following the hearing and pursuant to
Section 102 .67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure , Series 8, as amended , and by direction
of the Regional Director for Region 18, this case
was transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board for decision. Briefs have been filed by the
Employer, the Petitioner ,' and the Intervenor,
United Packinghouse, Foods & Allied Workers,
AFL-CIO, which was permitted to intervene on the
basis of a contractual interest.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error . They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs of the parties , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act , and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The background facts, for the most part un-
disputed , show that the Employer , since 1959, has
had master agreements with the Intervenor and
with Amalgamated Meatcutters and Butcher Work-
men of North America, AFL-CIO, referred to
herein as the Amalgamated . Each of these unions
represents employees at approximately half of the
Employer 's 36 plants . The master agreements pro-
vide for an "Automation Committee " composed of
two neutral members, four representatives of the
Employer , and two representatives of each of the
two unions . This committee is concerned with the
problems affecting employee tenure which arise as
a result of the automation of operations at the Em-
ployer's plants, the acquisition of new plants, and
' The Petitioner's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the
record, including the briefs, adequately presents the issues and the posi-
tions of the parties
Case I8-RC-7333
1649
the discontinuance of old plants . In 1961, the
master agreements were amended to provide (1)
that the committee was authorized to make a bind-
ing "determination when a plant closes and another
comes into being of whether or not the latter plant
is a replacement plant ," and (2) that employees of
a closed plant would be offered jobs at a replace-
ment plant in the order of their accumulated
seniority.
The Automation Committee determines ac-
cordingly whether a newly acquired plant of the
Employer is a replacement for a discontinued
operation or is an additional plant . This determina-
tion is made, under the terms of the master agree-
ments, following a hearing at which interested
parties are represented , on the basis of such criteria
as whether the operation in question is close geo-
graphically to the plant for which it might be a
replacement , lies within the same marketing area,
and performs similar operations.
On September 29, 1967, the Employer notified
the Intervenor that it was closing its West Point,
Nebraska , plant and intended shortly also to close
its Omaha , Nebraska, plant. It laid off approximate-
ly 100 employees at West Point and scheduled
1,750 at Omaha for layoff
On October 29 the Employer bought from Iowa
Beef Packers, Inc., the Sioux City plant here in-
volved, which is located about 50 miles from West
Point and 100 miles from Omaha . A few days later,
an announcement was posted in the plant which in-
cluded a statement that , under the terms of the
master agreement , this plant " could be determined
to be a replacement or a newly-established plant."
There is no collective -bargaining history at the
Sioux City plant . Several elections have been held
in which the employees rejected representation.
On October 30, the Amalgamated filed a peti-
tion2 seeking to represent the employees of the
Sioux City plant . Before any Board action was
taken on this petition , however , the Automation
Committee , on November 10, handed down a
determination designating the Sioux City plant as a
replacement for the West Point and Omaha plants.
This determination was made after a hearing at
which the two neutral members and representatives
of the Employer , the Intervenor , and the Amalga-
mated were present . By letter agreement dated
November 22, signed by the Employer and the In-
tervenor , Sioux City was included , as a replacement
plant for West Point and Omaha , in their master
agreement . Pursuant to such agreement , West Point
172 NLRB No, 189
1650 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Omaha, employees seeking transfer to Sioux
City were to be transferred in order of seniority,
and the employees at the Sioux City plant would be
displaced to the extent necessary and placed on a
separate seniority list. A unified list of all em
ployees at Sioux City would be established when
employment was stabilized. On November 28, the
Sioux City employees were apprised of the designa-
tion of the plant as a replacement plant.
On November 24, 1967, the Employer began
making offers of employment at Sioux City in order
of seniority to West Point employees No transfers
were made until January 8, 1968, however, because
of a temporary injunction, later vacated, obtained
by the Sioux City employees. By January 17, 1968,
the date of the hearing herein, 34 former em-
ployees of Iowa Beef Packers, Inc., had been laid
off; 1 1 employees had reported for work at Sioux
City from West Point and 43 more were scheduled
for transfer, and about 200 were expected to apply
for transfers to Sioux City from Omaha. As the
West Point plant was a replacement for a plant the
Employer formerly operated in Sioux City, some
Sioux City employees who then transferred to West
Point are now returning to Sioux City. The record
shows that the Employer also transferred some
management personnel to Sioux City on a tempo-
rary basis, but had not yet decided whether there
would be permanent transfers of such personnel.
At the time of the Employer's acquisition of the
Sioux City plant, the employee complement there
consisted of approximately 200 employees in 12
classifications . By early fall of 1968, this comple-
ment is scheduled to increase to about 400 em-
ployees in 26 classifications by reason of the addi-
tion of dressing to the slaughtering operations. As
stabilized , the Sioux City operations and classifica-
tions will be very similar to the hog slaughtering
and dressing operations at Omaha.
On December 13, 1967, the employees at Sioux
City organized the Petitioner , which on December
18 filed the instant petition seeking to represent the
employees at Sioux City . Shortly thereafter, the
Amalgamated withdrew the petition it had filed.
We find , on the basis of the foregoing factors and
on the entire record, that the Sioux City plant here
in issue is an accretion to the contractual multiplant
unit represented by the Intervenor . Thus , the Sioux
City plant represents a consolidation of the West
Point and Omaha plants which were included in
that unit ;' it will operate with a substantial propor-
tion of employees transferred from those plants;4
and the Sioux City employees will work on the
same type of products and will have job classifica-
tions,skills , functions , working conditions , and em-
ployment interests in common with the other unit
employees.5
Accordingly, as the Petitioner seeks an inap-
propriate unit , we shall dismiss the petition herein.'
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Chrt tier ( orporatlon, 124 NLRB 792
C hrt t/er C orporanon, supra
Baton Roua!e Nate, IVork% Cou,pa,n 170 N LRB I 18 1, Kad,o Co,pora-
non of a,nen,a, 127 NLRB 1563, lemon, hi( , 117 NLRB 19, Bo,,-
liar,,,', Corporation, 113 NLRB 152
In tress of this disposition, we find it unnecessary to resolve other con-
tentions urged by the Employer and the Intervenor as grounds to dismiss
the petition